Lasertone Corp. v. E.S.E. Eletronics CA2/2

Filed 6/17/14 Lasertone Corp. v. E.S.E. Eletronics CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

LASERTONE CORPORATION, B248908

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC401101) v.

E.S.E. ELECTRONICS et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Steven J. Kleifield, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Law Office of Martin F. Goldman, Martin F. Goldman for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Office of John Drooyan, John N. Drooyan for Defendants and Respondents.

___________________________________________________

This is the second appeal in this case. In the first appeal, we found in favor of plaintiff Lasertone Corporation (Lasertone), affirming the trial court’s order granting Lasertone’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Following remittitur, Lasertone moved to recover costs and fees incurred on appeal pursuant to an attorney fees clause in its settlement agreement with defendants E.S.E. Electronics (ESE) and David Kazemi. The trial court denied the request for attorney fees, finding that it was bound by a prior ruling. Because we find that the settlement agreement provided for recovery of attorney fees in connection with the prior appeal, we reverse. FACTS The First Appeal1 Lasertone shipped to defendants products valued at $207,171.74. The products were diverted by a third party affiliated with defendants. Defendants did not pay for the products and Lasertone brought suit for the open account balance. The parties eventually stipulated to entry of judgment in favor of Lasertone in the amount of $257,187.54 (including interest, costs, and fees), with entry of judgment to be stayed, provided that defendants paid the sum of $120,000 to Lasertone, and further that defendants used “their best efforts to pursue their claim for recovery from all insurance policies and sources available to them, for the losses alleged to have been sustained by Defendants from and on behalf of the conduct of Federico Kimura aka Ovando in diverting the shipments of goods to Defendants from Plaintiff, and which created the open account balance claimed to be due by Plaintiff in the principal sum of $207,171.74.” The parties’ settlement agreement required that defendants “execute all documents necessary to impose a first lien upon any recoveries sought by Defendant and shall agree to have any said recoveries issued to Defendants by a joint check made payable to