Jay Gill vs Falk & Blacksberg Inc et al

January 11, 2024, entry claims an additional 4.0 hours for Tyson Smith to revise and finalize the reply. Defendants request that the time be reduced by 60 percent. The court will reduce the time by the requested 60 percent, using Smith's reduced rate, to reflect a reasonable time spent on the task. (Minus $960)

The court does not find that it is proper to reduce any of the other claimed time for current fees. Applying the reductions to the $38,484.00 in current attorneys' fees results in current reasonable and necessary fees of $33,340.62.

Anticipated Fees: Plaintiffs, by way of the Notice of Motion, seek $4,000.00 for review of defendants' opposition, drafting of a reply, and attending the hearing on the motion. However, they do not address this request, at all, in the body of the motion or by way of declaration. The basis upon which plaintiffs seek to recover this amount is left entirely to speculation. Because plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of establishing the reasonableness and necessity of these claimed fees, they will not be awarded.

Fee Enhancement: Plaintiffs seek a loadstar multiplier enhancement of 1.35, arguing that it is warranted because of: "(1) the excellent outcome achieved for Plaintiffs; (2) the substantial risks posed by this litigation; and (3) the delay in payment of fees." "[T]he trial court is not required to include a fee enhancement to the basic lodestar figure for contingent risk, exceptional skill, or other factors, although it retains discretion to do so in the appropriate case; moreover, the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof." (Ketchum v. Moses, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1138.) The court does not find that it would be appropriate to include a multiplier in the present matter. Plaintiffs request for a multiplier will be denied.

Costs Plaintiffs seek costs in the amount of $9,510.52. "A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first. The memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case." (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1).) "Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. If the cost memorandum was served electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(3)." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(1).) If plaintiffs seek to recover costs, they must do so pursuant to the California Rules of Court.

The court will make no ruling regarding costs in connection with the present motion.

Tentative Ruling: Jay Gill vs Falk & Blacksberg Inc et al Tentative Ruling: Jay Gill vs Falk & Blacksberg Inc et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/29/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Petition: Confirm Arbitration Tentative Ruling

For all reasons stated herein, on or before June 26, 2026, the parties shall file a joint statement that (1) attaches a true and correct copy of the judgment entered in the San Luis Obispo Superior Court action, Jay Gill v. Hysen-Johnson Ford, Inc., et al., 21CV-0728 (SLO Action), and (2) sets forth the parties' respective positions on how this judgment and the recent ruling on plaintiff's petition to vacate in the SLO Action impacts defendants' petition in this action. The hearing on defendants' petition to confirm arbitration is continued to July 31, 2026.

Background: On December 23, 2021, plaintiff Jay Gill (Gill) initiated this action by filing a complaint against defendants Falk & Blacksberg, Inc., dba Perry Ford Mazda Santa Barbara, Falk Properties Santa Barbara, LLC, and Deborah Falk Properties Santa Barbara LLC (collectively, Defendants). On February 8, 2022, Gill filed his operative first amended complaint (FAC) setting forth three causes of action for: (1) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, real estate purchase agreement; (2) breach of contract, asset purchase agreement; (3) breach of good faith and fair dealing, asset purchase agreement.

As alleged in the FAC: Gill sought to enter exclusive and unique automotive markets currently occupied by Defendants in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. (FAC, P.P. 1-4) Defendants agreed to sell Gill certain automotive sales operations in these geographic areas. (Ibid.) The deal is comprised of four agreements: (1) a real estate purchase agreement relating to the Perry Ford and Perry Mazda automobile dealerships in Santa Barbara, (2) an asset purchase agreement relating to the Perry Ford and Perry Mazda automobile dealerships in Santa Barbara (collectively, the Santa Barbara Agreements), (3) a real estate purchase agreement relating to the Perry Ford Lincoln San Luis Obispo dealership, and (4) an asset purchase agreement relating to the Perry Ford Lincoln San Luis Obispo dealership (collectively, the SLO Agreements). (Ibid.)

The Santa Barbara Agreements are at issue in this action. (FAC, P. 4) The SLO Agreements are subject to a separate but related specific performance action filed by Gill in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, Case No. 21CV-0728 (the SLO Action). (Ibid.) The Santa Barbara Agreements consist of (1) Real Estate Purchase Agreement for 440 Hitchcock Way, Santa Barbara, California, dated August 20, 2021 (REPA); and (2) the Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Automobile Dealership Assets, dated August 20, 2021 (APA). (FAC, P. 5, Exs. 1-2.)

Although all conditions under the REPA and APA had been satisfied prior to the agreed upon closing date, Defendants refused to proceed with closing, thereby breaching both agreements. (FAC, P.P. 9, 10.)

On February 15, 2022, the court entered a stipulated order for arbitration that imposed a stay on this action pending completion of the arbitration. This action and the SLO Action were subsequently consolidated by the parties for purposes of arbitration. On October 3, 2025, Defendants filed the present petition to confirm arbitration award.

As alleged in the petition: On September 17, 2024, an arbitration award was made requiring Defendants to pay Gill a total of $200,000, $100,000 for this action and $100,000 for the SLO Action. (Pet., P.P. 8, 10(b)(3).) The arbitration award is attached to the petition. (Pet., Attach. 8(c).) The petition states in part, "[the SLO Action] and this Santa Barbara case were adjudicated together in the underlying arbitration proceeding. Therefore, the award reflects an award of $100,000.00 in the Santa Barbara case and an award of $100,000.00 in the San Louis Obispo case. $100,000.00 should be ordered in this [Santa Barbara] case." (Pet., P. 10(b)(3).)

The arbitrator's decision attached to the petition states in part, "[t]he Arbitrator finds that the Liquidated Damages provisions in each of the APAs limit BUYER's damages to the total sum of $200,000. Buyer is not entitled to any further damages, whether legal or equitable." (Pet., Attach. 8(c) at p. 3.) The arbitrator's award states in part, "Respondent SELLERS, upon the concession of liability, are to pay the total sum of $200,000.00 to BUYER as the sole damages for the breach of the APAs." (Id. at p. 4.)

On October 13, 2025, Gill filed an opposition to the petition to confirm arbitration award, arguing that Defendants filed petitions to confirm the arbitration award in both Santa Barbara County and San Luis Obispo County, and that there is a pending motion to vacate the arbitration award in the SLO Action. Gill argued that the court in the SLO Action had exclusive jurisdiction to rule on the petition to vacate filed by Gill in the SLO Action and that this