DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CV001227·monterey·Civil·Civil
Hearing 4 months agoGRANTED

Stacy Hill v. Legacy Painting and Renovating, Inc.

Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for Relief from Default and Plaintiff’s Request for Fees

Hearing date
May 1, 2026
Department
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Ex Parte Application rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$737.50$4,140$450$295

Parties

PlaintiffStacy Hill
DefendantLegacy Painting and Renovating, Inc.

Attorneys

Marc A. Eisenhartfor Defendant
Yao Mou(Mou Law PC)for Plaintiff

Ruling

Stacy Hill v. Legacy Painting and Renovating, Inc.

Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for Relief from Default and Plaintiff’s Request for Fees

Hearing Date: May 1, 2026

On April 28, 2026, during an ex parte hearing, this Court granted relief to Defendant Legacy Painting and Renovating, Inc. (“Defendant”) from the default entered 11 days earlier. The Court ordered the Clerk to accept Defendant’s Answer and determined Plaintiff Stacy Hill (“Plaintiff”) is entitled to reasonable costs and fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). The matter was continued for Plaintiff’s counsel to submit a supplemental declaration on costs. After review, the Court is inclined to order Defendant’s counsel, Marc A. Eisenhart, to pay opposing counsel, Yao Mou, $737.50 in reasonable legal fees.

When granting relief from default due to an “attorney affidavit of fault,” the Court must direct the attorney to pay reasonable legal fees and costs to the opposing counsel or party. [Code Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (b).] The reasonable hourly rate is the one prevailing in the community where the court is located. [Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 26, 71.]

Ms. Mou’s supplemental declaration requests $4,140 in attorney’s fees, calculated at $450 per hour for 8.7 hours on Defendant’s ex parte application and 0.5 hours for meeting and conferring with Mr. Eisenhart and preparing the declaration. [Supp. Mou Decl. at ¶ 9.] Ms. Mou’s requested rate is excessive for Monterey County, where the Court finds $295/hour appropriate based on local rates.

Additionally, the work required to oppose the ex parte application is unreasonable. It has long been held that relief based on an attorney’s affidavit of fault is mandatory, and the issues are not complex or novel. The Court finds 2.5 hours of work reasonable.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for fees and costs is GRANTED. Mr. Eisenhart shall pay $737.50 to Mou Law PC within 30 days of the order.

NOTE RE TENTATIVE RULING This tentative ruling becomes the court’s order, and no hearing shall be held unless one of the parties contests it by following Rule 3.1308 of the California Rules of Court and Monterey County Local Rule 7.9. Those parties wishing to present an oral argument must notify all other parties and the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing; otherwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED, AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE HEARING VACATED. You must notify the court by email or by calling the Calendar Department at 831-647-5800, extension 3040, before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.

1

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share