Boris Iofis v. David Lawver et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210

DATE: June 9, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 4 25CV465227 Austin Cortez v. Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. David Yee Line 5 25CV465227 Austin Cortez v. Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. David Yee Line 6 25CV465227 Austin Cortez v. Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. David Yee Line 7 23CV427370 Boris Iofis v. Defendants’ motion to tax costs. Notice is proper and the motion is David Lawver et unopposed. Failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the al. granting of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c).) Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the non-moving party has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489.)

Judgment was entered in February 2025, based on a settlement agreement signed by the parties. The settlement agreement called for defendant David Lawver to pay plaintiff $200,000 “in full and final satisfaction of all released claims.” (Settlement agreement attached to 2/5/25 judgment, ¶ 1.) It further states, “The Parties to this Agreement agree to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees in connection with this agreement and the Action.” (Id., ¶ 16.) The judgment required defendants jointly and severally to “pay to Plaintiff BORIS IOFIS the settlement sum of $200,000 forthwith and attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,800 (six hours at $300/hour).” (Judgment, filed 2/5/25, ¶ 2.)

Plaintiff filed an acknowledgement of “partial” satisfaction of judgment in November 2025, acknowledging he received $215,179.62 from defendants. Plaintiff thereafter filed a memorandum of costs, seeking $17,498.00 in post-judgment attorney fees. Plaintiff provides no evidence supporting the claimed fees, nor does he describe how that claim is consistent with the settlement agreement he signed. The November 2025 acknowledgement demonstrates that defendants have complied with the judgment in this case.