legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Militonian v. Adamian Oil Co., Inc.

Militonian v. Adamian Oil Co., Inc.
02:28:2007

Militonian v


Militonian v. Adamian Oil Co., Inc.


 


 


 


Filed 2/6/07  Militonian v. Adamian Oil Co., Inc. CA2/7


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS


 


California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT


DIVISION EIGHT







BUROUSAND MILITONIAN et al.,


            Plaintiffs and Appellants,


            v.


ADAMIAN OIL COMPANY, INC. et al.,


            Defendants and Respondents.



      B163824


      (Los Angeles County


      Super. Ct. No. TC006825)



            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  Ronald  V. Skyers, Judge.  Affirmed.


            Dykema Gossett, Joel R. Bennett, Matthew J. Fairshter and Brian C. Nelson for Appellants.


            Schwartz, Wisot & Wilson and John D. Wilson for Respondents.


___________________________


INTRODUCTION


In an action by premises lessees against a lessor, the lessees prevailed on certain claims, but not on others.  Following trial, the lessees moved for an award of attorney's fees and were awarded fees in an amount exceeding the judgment for damages.  On appeal, the issues are (1) whether the lessees or lessor were the prevailing party at trial; (2) whether the attorney's fee award should be apportioned between the contract cause of action and tort cause of action for conversion; and (3) whether a proper lodestar calculation was performed.


This court concludes as follows:  First, the trial court made an implicit determination that the Militonians were the prevailing party.  Second, the Militonians failed to satisfy their burden in demonstrating the fee award should be apportioned.  Third, although the trial court did not make specific findings as to the lodestar calculation, it weighed the appropriate factors in determining the award.  Therefore, this court finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirms the award of attorney's fees.


FACTUAL BACKGROUND


In 1992, Adamian Oil Company and George Adamian (Adamian) owned premises at 300 West Carson Street in Carson California.  Burousand and Sarkis Militonian (Militonians) leased the premises from Adamian for the purposes of operating a gas station.  The Militonians assumed control of the premises and operated the gas station subject to the lease.  In 1993, Adamian wrote to the Militonians requiring them to cease operations and turn over the premises to Adamian.  Adamian's letter stated Militonians' failure to surrender the premises would constitute a breach of the lease.  The Militonians went on vacation and closed the gas station for business for that period.  While the Militonians were on vacation, Adamian seized the premises, took control of all Militonians' personal property found on it, and operated the gas station.


In 1994, the Militonians filed suit against Adamian, alleging five causes of action:


·              The breach of contract cause of action alleges Adamian breached the lease agreement by seizing control of the premises.


·              The cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing alleges Adamian denied the existence of a lease agreement.


·              The cause of action for fraud alleges Adamian falsely represented it agreed to abide by the terms of the lease agreement, and the representations were made with the intent to defraud the Militonians and induce them to make investments and improvements on the gas station.


·              The cause of action for negligent misrepresentation alleges Adamian negligently represented it had the right to grant a lease to the Militonians and the Militonians detrimentally relied on this representation.


·              The cause of action for conversion alleges Adamian unlawfully obtained and converted all the Militonians' business records relating to the gas station business.


Following a jury trial in 2001, the Militonians were awarded $15,000 on the breach of contract claim and $3,000 on the conversion claim, for a total damage award of $18,000.  In 2002, the Militonians moved for attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $213,033.77.  Although Militonians' counsel provided time sheets in support of the motion, counsel failed to segregate hours spent on the recoverable and nonrecoverable causes of action.


At the hearing on the motion for attorney's fees, the trial court indicated it reviewed a case setting forth the lodestar method of calculating attorney's fees.[1]  The court explained, â€





Description In an action by premises lessees against a lessor, the lessees prevailed on certain claims, but not on others. Following trial, the lessees moved for an award of attorney's fees and were awarded fees in an amount exceeding the judgment for damages. On appeal, the issues are (1) whether the lessees or lessor were the prevailing party at trial; (2) whether the attorney's fee award should be apportioned between the contract cause of action and tort cause of action for conversion; and (3) whether a proper lodestar calculation was performed.
This court concludes as follows: First, the trial court made an implicit determination that the Militonians were the prevailing party. Second, the Militonians failed to satisfy their burden in demonstrating the fee award should be apportioned. Third, although the trial court did not make specific findings as to the lodestar calculation, it weighed the appropriate factors in determining the award. Therefore, this court finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirms the award of attorney's fees.

Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale