Conservatorship of Spears CA2/2

Filed 1/28/14 Conservatorship of Spears CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of B242444 BRITNEY JEAN SPEARS. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BP108870)

JAMES P. SPEARS, as Coconservator, etc., et al.,

Petitioners and Respondents,

v.

SAM LUTFI,

Objector and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Reva G. Goetz, Judge. Affirmed.

Sam Lutfi, in pro. per., for Objector and Appellant.

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks & Lincenberg, Joel E. Boxer and Bonita D. Moore for Petitioners and Respondents.

_________________________

Appellant Sam Lutfi (Lutfi) appeals from a trial court order awarding attorney fees to petitioners and respondents James P. Spears and Andrew M. Wallet (collectively respondents). At issue is whether respondents’ renewed motion for attorney fees is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b) (section 1008), or rule 3.1702 of the California Rules of Court (rule 3.1702). Lutfi contends that rule 3.1702 controls, and that respondents’ renewed motion for attorney fees was untimely pursuant to that rule. Alternatively, Lutfi argues that even if section 1008 governs, respondents’ renewed motion was still untimely and should have been denied. Contrariwise, respondents assert that section 1008, subdivision (b), controls, and that their renewed motion for attorney fees was not untimely. Like the trial court, we conclude that section 1008, subdivision (b), controls, and that respondents’ renewed motion for attorney fees was not untimely. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order awarding attorney fees against Lutfi and in favor of respondents. BACKGROUND I. Restraining order and original motion for attorney fees On January 30, 2009, respondents, acting on behalf of conservatee Britney Spears, initiated restraining order proceedings against Lutfi, Jon Jay Eardley (Eardley), and Adnan Ghalib (Ghalib). On April 28, 2009, the probate court (Hon. Aviva K. Bobb) issued a three-year restraining order against Lutfi, Eardley, and Ghalib. Eardley timely filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order. On April 29, 2009, Lutfi filed a separate notice of appeal. While Eardley’s and Lutfi’s appeals were pending, respondents moved the trial court for attorney fees. Lutfi opposed their motion, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court should not entertain the request while his appeal was pending. On June 2, 2009, the trial court (Judge Bobb) determined that respondents were the prevailing parties with respect to the restraining orders issued on April 28, 2009, against Lutfi, Eardley, and Ghalib. It awarded $11,500 in attorney fees and costs against