Ratner v. Wilson CA4/3

Filed 12/17/15 Ratner v. Wilson CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

AARON T. RATNER,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G051264

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00455729)

PETER WILSON, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Timothy J. Stafford, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Law Offices Robert G. Loewy, P.C. and Robert G. Loewy for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance by Defendant and Respondent.

Aaron Ratner appeals from a postjudgment order denying him contractually authorized attorney fees. Ratner’s contract dispute with Peter Wilson, Jeffrey Flegel, and Wilson’s company WK Holdings was resolved by a settlement agreement. When Wilson violated the terms of the agreement, Ratner filed a motion for entry of judgment pursuant 1 to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, authorizing courts to enter judgments consistent with parties’ settlement agreement. Temporary Judge Michael Balmages granted the motion and ruled Wilson must pay Ratner $350,000 in damages, costs, and attorney fees. The judgment did not designate an amount for costs and attorney fees, and Ratner was ordered to file a cost bill and motion for attorney fees. A different trial judge, Judge Timothy J. Stafford, considered and denied Ratner’s motion for attorney fees. In this appeal, Ratner maintains Judge Stafford denied the motion for improper reasons, arguing Judge Stafford improperly reconsidered the validity of the settlement agreement and decided Judge Balmages wrongly decided the issue. We conclude Judge Stafford lacked jurisdiction to reconsider Judge Balmages’s ruling. Judge Stafford’s authority was limited to reviewing the scope of the attorney fee provision contained in the settlement agreement and to calculate the reasonable amount of fees, if any, to be awarded. We reverse the order denying Ratner’s attorney fee motion and remand for a new hearing on the matter. I In 2011, Ratner filed a lawsuit against Flegel, Wilson, and WK Holdings after a business venture, in which Ratner helped secure financing for a clothing company, went sour. The first amended complaint prayed for declaratory relief, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied and oral joint venture agreement, breach of implied contract, misappropriation of confidential information, fraud, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and quantum meruit. 1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.