DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV0004467·marin·Civil·Attorney Fees
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

Sara Chezkian v. Daniel L. Damato

Motion – Stay

Hearing date
May 22, 2026
Department
L
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Attorney Fees rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$116,206.03$267,400.00$72,732.80$340,132.80$3,350.60$650

Parties

PlaintiffSara Chezkian
DefendantDaniel L. Damato

Attorneys

Benjamin Gravesfor Plaintiff

Ruling

Plaintiff Sara Chezkian filed on March 2, 2026, a Motion for recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of $116,206.03.

Plaintiff Chezkian prevailed after a trial on the merits and on February 24, 2026, this Court issued a Judgment After Trial of $267,400.00 and awarded pretrial interest of $72,732.80 for a final judgment amount of $340,132.80. The total amount of costs requested, including the pleadings, discovery, and trial was $116,206.03 which includes $3,350.60 of filing fees, deposition costs, service of process fees, and electronic filing.

Defendants have not filed a response nor an opposition to the motion for post-trial fees costs. The failure to oppose is considered consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c); Local Rule Marin, Civil 2.8G.1.)

Plaintiff’s motion is therefore GRANTED as requested. The court approves the requested hourly rate of $650 for Benjamin Graves and finds that it is in line, if not below, the reasonable rate charged by lawyers in the community with his level of experience.

Plaintiff is to lodge a proposed order for consideration.

Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(A), (B), which provides that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.

IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. Kindly turn your camera on when your case is called and make sure the party or lawyer making the appearance is properly identified on the screen.

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing while using the virtual remote courtroom. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence. If it is determined that you are driving your car during the hearing, you will be removed from the virtual courtroom. (Yes, this happens).

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