?9 xi}? MARTIN SINGER (BAR No. 78166) 8? ALLISON s. HART (BAR N0e190409) cu a382, ts? Emil? LAVELY SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION is J: 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90067?2906 Telephone: (310) 556 3501 JJ mm Facsimile (310) 556 3615 88 8'8 888 email: mdsinaer?lavelvsinaencorn email: ahart@lavelysinaer.com ii ?3.9le Ugh" 8?8 Quinlan Attorneys for Petitioners BRUCE WILLIS and WESTSIDE CORP. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BRUCE WILLIS, an individual; WESTSIDE) CASE NO. CORP. California Corporation, [Related to 138164066] Petitioners, [Hon Rafael A. Ongkeko, Dept. 73] v. - NOTICE OF MOTION FOR COMPANY, LLC, a California) AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES limited liability company dba BENAROYA) MICHAEL BENAROYA, an) individual, Respondents. TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTECE that on March 13, 2017, in Department ?73" of the above? entitled Court, the Hon. Rafael Ongkeko presiding, the Court issued a Tentative Ruling on Petitioners? Motion for an Award of Attorneys Fees, 3 true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit Counsel for Petitioners Bruce Willis and Westside Corp. (collectively 8?Petitioners?) and counsel for Respondents Company, .LLC dba Benaroya Pictures and Michael Benaroya (collectively ?Respondents?) each noti?ed the Court that they would submit on the Court?s Tentative Ruling, therefore, there was no appearance by the parties at the scheduled hearing on March 14, 2017. 466 631' OF RUMNG 1 NOTICE OF RUUNG seas?: 31 \9 00 -J ah U) Accordingly, the Court?s Tentative Ruling granting Petitioners? Motion for an Award of Attorneys Fees is granted in the amount of $28,465. Petitioners were ordered to give notice of the Court?s Ruling. DATED: March 14, 2017 LAVELY SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MARTIN D. SINGER ALLISON S. HART By: 4) MM (Nita/?4?- VALLISON S. PIART Attorneys for Petitioners BRUCE WILLIS and WESTSIDE CORP. 4664 63/ NOTICE OF RULING 2 NOTICE OF RULING Tentative Rulings Online Serv' is - LA'Court Page 6 of 10 motion to strike the request for attorney?s fees must also be Lastly, Plaintiff?s request for Mae?s general damages is allowable under the elder abuse statute, and motion to strike these damages is CCH also moves to strike the request for prejudgment interest under Civil Code 3287 and 3288. "[P]rejudgment .interest [is] 'awarded to compensate a party for the loss of his or her property.? Greater Westchester Homeowners Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 26 Cal.3d 86, 102 (emphasis in original). ?However, damages for the intangible, noneconomic aspects of mental and emotional injury are of a different nature? and ?are inherently nonpecunlary, unliquidated and not readily subject to precise calculation.? Id. at 103. Accordingly, prejudgrnent interest is routinely denied in actions involving personal injury that do not include property damage. id. Therefore, the motion to strike the requests for prejudgrnent interest is GRANTED. Lastly, CCH moves to strike is irrelevant and improper certain allegations on pages 32 and 35 of the complaint regarding licensing status. At the pleading stage, these allegations are taken as true and appear to be potentially relevant to the claims in this action. Therefore, the motion to strike these allegations is Notice of ruling by Plaintiffs. Case Number: Hearing Date: MarChW 2017 DEPHB 3/14/17 Dept. 73 Rafael Ongkeko,judge presiding COMPANY, LLC, et al. V. BRUCE WILLIS, et al. (85164066, r/t BS164649) BRUCE et ai. V. COMPANY, LLC, et al. 85164066) MOTIONS (2) FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES TENTATIVE Regarding case no. 85164066: Bruce Willis and Westside Corp.?s motion (filed 2/10/17) for attorney?s fees is granted in the amount of $28,465. Regarding case no. [351646492 Bruce and Westside Corp.'s motion (?led 2/10/17)for attorney?s fees is granted in the amount of $28,465. htto ui/ 3/13/2017 Tentative Rulings Online See as LA Court Page 7 of 10 4 -..D 15 Pieas unateiyathze courts-tentative exiting website-Wm ch is the source of this version, is not able to show certain formatting that may be contained in the original, such as the court?s use of footnotes, boldface, italics, or the underscoring of case citations.) Bruce Willis and Westside Corp. have filed virtually identical motions for attorney?s fees in the two actions. (Page 3 of Martin Singer?s declaration is missing from the motion filed in 85164649, but the declaration appears to be identical to that filed in 851 64066.) Willis and Westside Corp. argue that the Escrow Agreement included an attorney's fees provision and that, as the prevailing parties on these counter- petitions to confirm/vacate the arbitration award, they are entitled to recover their reasonable attorney's fees as costs. Willis and Westside Corp. seek a total of $74,315.00 in attorneys fees between the two motions (split 5050 for a recovery of $37,157.50 on each motion). Willis and Westside Corp. contend that the requested rates (between $500 and $950) are reasonable and that the time spent litigating these-petitions was reasonable. Benaroya Parties? identicai opposition papers argue that Michael Benaroya should not be personally liable for any attorneys fees because he was not a party to the Escrow Agreement. Second, the Benaroya Parties contend that the fees requested are excessive because the counter?petition to confirm the award was superfluous and the fees incurred by the separate law firm, Horvitz Levy, were not necessary. Entitlement to attorney?s fees Paragraph 10 of the Escrow Agreement provides in part, there is any dispute between [Benaroya Pictures] and [Westside Corp] with respect to the disposition of funds deposited in the Escrow Account, the parties agree that such dispute shall be resolved exclusively through arbitration in Los Angeles, California pursuant to the rules and regulations before a single arbitrator. . . .The prevailing party in any such arbitration shall be entitled to recover its reasonabie outside attorneys fees and costs." Pursuant to this attorney?s fees provision, Willis and Westside Corp. have already been awarded $321,162.50 with respect to the litigation of the underlying arbitration. Willis and Westside Corp. are also entitled to recover their reasonabie attorney?s fees as costs in litigating the present counter?petitions to confirm/vacate the arbitration award. See Code Civ. Proc, 1293.2 court shall award costs upon anyjudicial proceeding under this title as provided in [Section 1021 et Code Civ. Proc, (attorney?s fees recoverable as costs if authorized by 3/ 13/2017 Tentative Rulings Online Sen LA Court - Page 8 of 10 -;.ce.otii1riningta.n rd and/or defending against a petition to vacate or correct an arbitration award are necessarily entailed in the litigation of the arbitration and are recoverable under Paragraph 10 ofthe Escrow Agreement. The Benaroya Parties? contention that attorneys fees may not be awarded against Michael Benaroya personally is rejected. As reflected in the arbitrator?s final award, Michael Benaroya has been found to be the alter ego of Benaroya Pictures. . Accordingly, Michael Benaroya isjointly and severally liable for the attorney?s fees awarded pursuant to Willis and Westsicle Corp.'s present motions. Lodestar analysis The Benaroya Parties contention that moving parties? separate filing of a petition to confirm the arbitration award is ?superfluous" has partial merit. The statutory scheme for a response to a petition to "vacate or correct," such as that filed by the Benaroya Parties in Case No. 88164066, provides an efficient means to ?confirm, correct or vacate? an arbitration award (CCP 1285.2) in the same proceeding. The court has the power to confirm the award, whether through a petition or response. (CCP 1286) Indeed, in their response to the Benaroya Parties? petition, Respondents prayed that ?the Award be confirmed and Judgment conformity with the (Response in 85164066, at 5:14-15) Moving parties have not cited authority that requires a second petition, such as that filed in 85164649. The work done was billed to one file and involved the same issues. To the extent that the pleading and research work on two petitions was duplicative, attorney?s fees will not be allowed for such work. The billings show that such work was handled by Ms. Hart. The court makes further reductions for certain unnecessary intra?office communications between Mr. Singer and Ms. Hart, resulting in duplication of work and layered billings between counsel, such as meetings, phone calls, emails, and prep time. As far as appellate counsel costs, the court finds such expenses compensable and reasonable as the work was relevant to the underlyingpetitions. The court finds the hours requested should be adjusted, as follows: Hours shown on invoices between August, 20l6 andlanuary, 2017: MDS 25.4~ allowed. 3/ 13/2017 Tentative Rulings Online Ser as LA Court Page 9 of 10 -- Additional hours requested (not shown on invoices): 2.0-, not allowed. ASH 11.0, reduced by 5 hours to: 6 hours (3 hours and 3 hours travel/appearance time) I Total hours allowed: MDS: 27.4 ASH: 61.8 89.2 Hourly rate: $950 for MDS and $500 for ASH are reasonable rates in our legal community. The Benaroya Parties do not otherwise dispute these rates. Total fees allowed for both petitions: MDS: $26,030 ASH: $30,900 Total: $56,930 One-half of the total is awarded to moving parties in each petition: $28,465. The court finds that $56,930 is a reasonable attorneys fee for the overali work relating to the two petitions. As framed by the Benaroya Parties, the issues required a virtual relitigation of key aspects of the arbitration proceedings involving the alter ego and non?signator issues, as well as the arbitrator?s and the court's respective powers in connection with such issues. The quality of work and arguments made were high and obviousiy successful. The amount at stake was significant. As shown by its reduction of Ms. Hart?s time, the court has reduced the hours spent that likely could have been avoided by having to ?le essentially duplicate pleadings and doing related work by around 20% of the total time. In the court?s View, the remainder of the time was not duplicative and would have been spent anyway even if a second petition had not been filed. Dividing the total amount equally in recognition of the two separate actions, the sum of $28,465 is a reasonable attorney?s fee for each petition. This amount will be included as part of the judgment previously entered in each case. Uniess waived, notice of ruling by moving parties. 3/13/2017 Tentative Rulings Online Saw" 8 LA C?urt Page 10 of 10 -- gCase rarNum-be1:48-53:64649 De pig?23 3/ 1 4/1 7 Dept. 73 Rafael Ongkeko,Judge presiding COMPANY, LLC, et aI. V. BRUCE WILLIS, et al. (88164066, r/t 88164649) BRUCE WILLIS, et aI. V. COMPANY, LLC, et al. (BS164649,r/t 85164066) MOTIONS (2) FOR AN AWARD OF FEES TENTATIVE RULING (SEE 85164066 THIS DATE.) Art Showcased in Los Ange?es Courthouse Jury Rooms "New York? 33}; Samantha Wei 2-303 Howrah-Es Mention Scum: Anga?as 3/13/2017 00 ?1 4; DJ e: PROOF or SERVICE C.C.P. Revised 5/1/88 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 1am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400, Los Angeles, California 90067?2906. On March 14, 2017, I served the foregoing document described as: NOTICE OF RULING RE MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES on the interested parties in this action by placing: a true and correct copy the original document thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: David A. Grossman, Esq. Attorneys forRespondents Robert J. Catalano, Esq. COMPANY, LLC, et a1. LOEB LOEB LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, California 90067 T: 310?282?2000 F: 310?282-2200 BY MAIL: deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. As follows: I am ?readily familiar" with the ?rm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with US. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. 1 am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. declare'under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed March 14, 2017 at Los Angeles, California. \E?i El til {(21 gi, EENNIFER VALENTINE 466?l?3/ NOTICE OF RULING 3 OF RULING