Kleidman v. RFF Family Partnership CA2/4

Filed 4/14/22 Kleidman v. RFF Family Partnership CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

PETER KLEIDMAN, B302449

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC121303) v.

RFF FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LP,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from postjudgment orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elaine W. Mandel, Judge. Affirmed. Peter Kleidman, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant Parcells Law Firm and Dayton B. Parcells III for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Peter Kleidman, in propria persona, appeals from the trial court’s order awarding defendant RFF Family Partnership, LP

attorney fees incurred postjudgment and on appeal pursuant to Civil Code section 1717. Plaintiff also challenges the court’s issuance of a protective order that defendant need not respond to plaintiff’s discovery request. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This court previously addressed the merits of this case in Kleidman v. RFF Family Partnership, LP (July 10, 2018, B268541). As explained in our prior opinion, plaintiff sued defendant (and others) for, among other claims, breach of contract, alleging that he had been overcharged interest, fees, and other expenses in connection with numerous loans. The loan agreement between defendant and plaintiff had a clause awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party. He failed to appear at trial and judgment was entered against him. In the prior appeal, we affirmed the judgment, affirmed the postjudgment order denying plaintiff’s motions to set aside the judgment and for a new trial, and affirmed the postjudgment order awarding attorney fees to defendant. After remittitur issued, defendant filed a motion in the trial court for additional attorney fees incurred postjudgment and on appeal. Defendant also filed a motion for protective order related to discovery propounded by plaintiff. The trial court granted defendant’s motions. The court awarded defendant $38,572.50 in attorney fees and issued an order that defendant need not respond to plaintiff’s belated discovery request. This appeal followed.