Forte Properties Mo, LLC vs. Anonymity Assets, LLC

(Id; Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1992) 4 Ca1.App.4th 807, 816.)

Here, the hourly rates for counsel appear generally reasonable in the context of a contingency lemon law claim (assuming the $430/hour rate claimed for Mr. McCabe in ROA 37 at ¶ 21, rather than the $525/hour rate shown for him on the invoice at Ex. A). However, the claimed paralegal rate seems high, and the paralegal time claimed seems excessive in context. In addition, the $3,500 flat fee claimed for services rendered prior to engagement is not adequately shown to be appropriate here and so will not be allowed. Plaintiff has also failed to show that any multiplier is warranted. The Court therefore finds that the sum which Plaintiff should recover for attorney’s fees is $15,864.

With regard to claimed costs, the opposition has failed to show why any should not be recoverable here, and the invoices presented reflect reasonable expenses. The Court thus finds that Plaintiff should recover $699.80 in costs here.

The total award for fees and costs here is therefore $16,563.80.

The court continues the OSC re: dismissal on settled case from 8/17/26 to 12/7/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24.

Plaintiff shall give notice.

304 Forte Properties The unopposed demurrer of cross-defendants Mo, LLC vs. Balboa Real Estate, Inc. and Ashkon Babaee Anonymity (collectively, Cross-Defendants) directed to the Assets, LLC cross-complaint of Anonymity Assets, LLC (Cross- Complainant) is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend. The motion to strike is MOOT.

Cross-Defendants’ demur to each cause of action in the cross-complaint is well-taken. Cross- Complainant failed to oppose the demurrer. As such, Cross-Complainant implicitly conceded the demurrer’s merit. (See Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20.)

Cross-Defendants shall give notice.

305 Aghawani vs. Before the Court is a continued hearing on plaintiff Vershinin Lamis Aghawani’s Motion to Place Documents Dental Under Seal. The motion is DENIED as set forth Corporation herein.

This is the third hearing on the instant motion. In the Court’s Minute Orders for the 5/18/26 and 7/6/26 hearings, the Court noted deficiencies in the moving papers and continued the hearings to allow Aghawani to remedy the problems. In the 7/6/26 Minute Order, the Court stated

“A party requesting a court record be filed under seal “must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.” (Cal. R. Ct. 2.551(b)(1).) “The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (Id.) The instant motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §367.3. Plaintiff states she is “an active participant in the Secretary of State’s confidential address program, Safe at Home.” (ROA 62.) She also states that her program identification number is 3763. (ROA 60.)

“On June 26, 2026, the plaintiff filed a “Notice of Lodging of Redacted Documents” (ROA 76.) and concurrently lodged copies of the documents with redactions. The Court has reviewed the proposed redactions. On all documents identified in ROA 76, except for ROA 21, the plaintiff has redacted her