WILBOR vs LEDUC & DEXTER INC., et al.

22CV009431: WILBOR vs LEDUC & DEXTER INC., et al. 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Anthony Barbato (Defendant) CRS# 135538931645 in Department 512

Tentative Ruling - 05/29/2026 Jenna Whitman

The Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Anthony Barbato on 03/17/2026 is Granted.

Defendant Anthony Barbato’s (“Defendant”) unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED.

The Court AWARDS Defendant attorney’s fees payable by plaintiff Rosalinda Wilbor (“Plaintiff”) in the amount of $88,585. (See Arouh Dec. ¶ 8.)

The Court notes that the motion purports to seeks costs of suit also, but that request has already been made pursuant to Defendant’s filing of a Memorandum of Costs on 5/22/2026. A ruling on costs would therefore be premature. (CRC Rule 3.1700(a)(1).)

The basis for the award of attorney’s fees is the written lease agreement between Plaintiff and defendant Redwood Senior Living Inc. (“Redwood”) at ¶ 19 providing for an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in litigation arising under the lease. (Complaint Exh. 1.) Plaintiff’s Operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges that Defendant is the owner and CEO of Redwood and alleges that Redwood and Defendant are alter egos. (FAC ¶¶ 4-8.)

On 9/14/2024, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted based on Defendant meeting his initial burden of production to show that he and Redwood were not alter egos and Plaintiff’s failure to submit sufficient evidence in opposition to create triable issues of material fact regarding Defendant’s alter ego liability.

Because Plaintiff would have been entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees under the lease had she established at trial Redwood’s liability and that Redwood and Defendant were alter egos, Defendant is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees in this action. (Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson (1979 25 Cal.3d 124, 128.) The declaration filed in support of the motion supports the reasonableness of the (discounted) hourly fee charged by each billing professional. It also provides an adequate explanation of the tasks performed and documents prepared, which appear to be reasonable and necessary to defend this action.

Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a declaration on 5/27/2026 regarding the termination of his services by Plaintiff on 9/30/2025 and his transmission of the moving papers to Plaintiff on an unspecified date by mail. Counsel’s declaration does not contest Defendant’s Motion on the merits. Counsel remains Plaintiff’s counsel of record in this action until an executed Substitution of Counsel has been filed or a Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel has been filed and granted by the Court.