Hyun Park v. Glen Coutinho and Kenny Kapoor

attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award." (Id. at 1132.) "The ''experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.''" (Id.)

A negative modifier was appropriate when duplicative work had been performed. (Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819.)

Plaintiff submits the declaration of its attorney, Austin Baillio ("Baillio"), in support of its request for attorney fees. Baillio declares that he billed $375.00 an hour until January 10, 2025, and then billed $395.00 per hour, with some work charged on a flat fee basis. (Motion, Baillio Decl., P.6 and Exh. A.) The paralegals billed at $175.00 to $185.00 per hour. (Id. at P.9 and Exh. A.)

The Court finds the work billed at an hourly rate by the paralegals, and for Baillio's work, to be supported and reasonable. The paralegals followed up with a private investigator and searched databases for information about Judgment Debtors' military status, potential bankruptcies, and potential assets. (Ibid.) Counsel charged Judgment Creditor a flat rate of $400.00 to draft the instant Motion. (Id. at Exh. A.)

Therefore, the Court finds the attorney's fees were reasonable and necessary to Judgment Creditor's collection efforts and awards it attorney's fees of $1,624.50.

Regarding costs incurred, Judgment Creditor seeks $340.56 for file management software provider charges, electronic filing fees, postage, and background investigation. (Motion, Baillio Decl., Exh. A., p. 2.) The Court declines to award costs for file management software provider charges, which the Motion does not discuss. Judgment Creditor is awarded the remaining costs in the amount of $193.56.

Conclusion

Therefore, Judgment Creditor Desert Passage Community Association's Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs is granted in the amount of $1,624.50 in attorney fees and $193.56 in costs. Moving party to give notice.

Plaintiff Hyun Park's Motion to Vacate Dismissal is denied.

Analysis: Plaintiff Hyun Park ("Plaintiff"), in propria persona, filed the instant action for unfair business practices and fraudulent concealment against Defendant Glen Coutinho ("Defendant Coutinho") on September 26, 2024. On April 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint for breach of contract against Defendant Coutinho and Kenny Kapoor ("Defendant Kapoor"). Following Defendant Coutinho's failure to file a responsive pleading, the Court entered their default on June 4, 2025.

The case came for trial on March 26, 2026, at which time Plaintiff appeared and made an oral request to dismiss the action without prejudice. (Minute Order, 03/26/26.) The Court dismissed the action pursuant to the request and vacated future hearing dates in the case. (Ibid.)

On May 4, 2026, Plaintiff filed a request to dismiss Defendant Kapoor and Does 1-10, which the Court entered on the same day. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Dismissal on August 3, 2026. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

The Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b). Under this statute, an application for relief must be made within a reasonable time, no more than six months after entry of the order from which relief is sought, and must be accompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting to the party or attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.) A timely request for relief from an entry of default, default judgment, or involuntary dismissal, based on attorney fault, must be granted. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (b).)

The Motion inaccurately recounts the procedural history of the case, and in doing so, moves to vacate a dismissal that did not occur. Specifically, Plaintiff moves to vacate a dismissal entered "by reason of plaintiff's failure to appear at final hearing on 06/18/2026." (Motion, p. 1:27-28.) As detailed above, no hearing occurred on June 18, 2026. Instead, Plaintiff appeared on the March 26, 2026 trial date and requested dismissal of the First Amended Complaint (Minute Order, 03/26/26.) Plaintiff also separately filed a request to dismiss Defendant Kapoor and Does 1-10 on May 4, 2026. No dismissal due to Plaintiff's failure to appear occurred; rather, Plaintiff themselves sought dismissal of the action.

Plaintiff's explanation of the dismissal, and of the grounds to vacate it, therefore, do not demonstrate that it was entered through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Nor is the Motion supported by a declaration that attests to the facts upon which Plaintiff moves. Instead, the supporting declaration sets forth facts regarding the basis of Plaintiff's action. (Motion, Park Decl.) Finally, the Motion does not address whether the request for relief, which was filed more than four months after dismissal, was made in a reasonable time. Based on the foregoing, the Motion fails to meet any of the statutory criteria for relief from dismissal of the action.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Hyun Park's Motion to Vacate Dismissal is denied. Judicial Assistant to give notice.

Case Number: 26STLC02376 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: 26

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff National Commercial Recovery, Inc. dba Blair Smith and Associates' Motion to Compel Further Responses to Set One of Special Interrogatories is granted. Defendant Elad Primosher is ordered to serve code-compliant, supplemental responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 5-9 and 12-16, within 20 days of this ruling. Defendant Elad Primosher is ordered to pay Plaintiff's counsel sanctions of $630.00, also within 20 days.