Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record
106 2024-01445728 Motion for Attorney Fees
Nguyen vs. Cross-defendant Christopher Langley’s motion for attorneys’ fees in the amount of Nguyen $33,865.00 against cross-complainants Tina Nguyen and Ly Thi Nguyen pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c)(1) is granted. [ROA #135.]
Cross-Complainants’ request for judicial notice is denied as not relevant to the pending fee motion. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 n.2 (“There is, however, a precondition to the taking of judicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive form—any matter to be judicially noticed must be relevant to a material issue.”)(citations omitted).
The Court finds the requested hourly rate reasonable. The Court also finds the number of hours expended and billed by Langley’s counsel to be reasonable. Thus Langley’s motion for attorneys’ fees is granted.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
107 2024-01441679 Motion for Attorney Fees
Boukova vs. The Court grants Plaintiffs Roumyana Boukova and Mariah Denkov’s motion for attorney’s Volkswagen fees against Defendant Volkswagen Group of America Inc. (VGA) in the amount of Group of America, $18,731.50 and costs in the amount of $2,541.57. Inc. The Court finds the hourly rates and actual time expended to be reasonable. However, the Court declines to award any multiplier. Additionally, the Court will not award the anticipated attorneys’ fees requested for reviewing and analyzing defendants opposition and drafting a reply to the opposition. This motion was not opposed.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
108 2025-01466875 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record
Kramer vs. Before the Court is Sarah Shapero, Esq. and Shapero Law Firm, P.C.’s motion to be relieved Schoolsfirst as counsel for Plaintiff Paul Kramer. Federal Credit Union The Proof of Service shows that Defendants were served with this Motion via their Counsel Cathy Granger, Esq. who was served at “220 Montgomery St STE 1100, San Francisco, CA 94104”. (See ROA 135.) This is not the address on the Answer or recently filed CMC statement. (See ROAs 36, 111.) The Court does not see a change of address form filed.
The Court will hear from Counsel on the issue of notice to Defendants of this hearing and/or whether Defendants waive any notice defect.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Should the notice issue not be cured, this matter is continued to September 28, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department C27.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.