Jaleh v. Alford
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
FRED JALEH, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL ALFORD, Defendant and Appellant. | E039756 (Super.Ct.No. RIC376615) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Gloria Trask, Judge. Affirmed.
Paul Alford, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
John Theodore Dean for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Paul Alford (Alford) once again appeals from a trial court order granting plaintiff Fred Jaleh (Jaleh) attorney's fees on appeal. Jaleh filed a motion for attorney's fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, subdivision (i), upon remittitur from this court's award in his favor in the matter of Jaleh v. Alford (June 10, 2005, E036160) (nonpub. opn.), wherein we affirmed the trial court's award of attorney's fees upon the remittitur from a prior award on appeal (Jaleh v. Alford (Sept. 9, 2003, E032876) (nonpub. opn.)). We will take judicial notice of these prior opinions in order to provide context for this appeal. As he did in appeal E036160, Alford claims that the trial court erred in granting Jaleh's motion for attorney's fees as costs on appeal. He argues that the trial court (1) failed to determine Jaleh's entitlement to an award of attorney's fees on appeal and failed to state the legal ground upon which its award was made, (2) failed to exercise its discretion in a manner consistent with satisfying legislative intent because it did not require proof from Jaleh's attorney that he took on the appeal only because of the existence of the fee shifting statute, (3) allowed Jaleh's attorney to earn a fee from Jaleh and be paid by Alford thereby â€
