Notice of Motion And Motion For An Order Authorizing Compromise And Dismissal Pursuant To Ccp Section 708.440(B); Dec of Brian Kim

Motion

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.October 10, 2012

O O 0 1 a N n n B A W N N O N N N N N N N N H E m E m s e m s s 0 ~ ~ A N W n B R A W N , D O O N N N R E W D o John C. Carpenter, Esq. (SBN 155610) Brian J. Kim, Esq. (SBN. 282538) CARPENTER ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY, LLP 8827 West Olympic Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3613 Telephone: (310) 273-1230 Maryam Parman, Esq. (SBN 197601) AVREK LAW FIRM 9180 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: (888) 333-5009 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION JULIAN ALBARADO, SR., an individual, BERTHA ALBARADO, individually and as the Administrator for the ESTATE OF JULIAN ALBARADO, SR., deceased; and JULIAN ALBARADO, JR., an individual; Plaintiffs, VS. JAMES BABCOCK,an Individual; AHERN RENTALS, INC., a Nevada Corporation; ELIAS MENDOZA, an Individual; JESUS MENDOZA, an Individual; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO. 30-2012-00604351-CU-PP-CJC NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 708.440(b); DECLARATION OF BRIAN J. KIM Date: June 21, 2017 Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept: C25 Reservation ID: 72568918 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 21, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Department C25 of the Orange County Superior Court located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701Plaintiffs BERTHA ALBARADO and JULIAN ALBARADO, JR. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) will move for an order, pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure § 708.440(b), for an order - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 708.440(b) O O © ~ ~ OO " U n H h Ww W N = N O N N N N N N N O N = e e = = e e c o ~ ~ O N h h R r W N R O O e N S N R W e o authorizing the dismissal of Plaintiff Julian Albarado, Jr. as a party to this lawsuit and approving a settlement between Plaintiff Bertha Albarado and Defendants. The settlement, if approved by the Court, will resolve this entire action. This motion is based on this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the attached Declaration of Brian J. Kim, any attached exhibits, the papers and records on file herein, and on any such oral and documentary evidence which may be presented at the hearing ofthis motion. DATED: April 12, 2017 CARPENTER, ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY, LLP rd. JOHN C.CARPENTER BRIAN J, KIM Attorneys for Plaintiffs, BERTHA ALBARADO and JULIAN ALBARADO, JR. By: 2 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO C.C.P, § 708.440(b) O O 0 1 0 O N n m o b W w W w N D = N O N N N N N N N N D m m m e m k m e a e e C C ~ ~ O N W n R h W N = , S Y X N N R W O o MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This wrongful death action arises from an incident involving Plaintiffs’ father, Julian Albarado, Sr., who was struck and killed by a semi-truck and a passenger vehicle while lawfully crossing a street as a pedestrian. Plaintiffs signed the Retainer Agreement with Carpenter Zuckerman & Rowley, LLP (hereinafter “CZR”) on September 17, 2012. See Declaration of Brian J. Kim (hereinafter “Kim Dec.”) at 42. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffsfiled the Complaint against Defendants on October 10, 2012. Kim Dec. at § 2. Liability was heavily disputed as the accident was unwitnessed and there was no evidence to reconstruct the incident. Kim Dec. at §2. As a result, the discovery process involved a tremendous amount of work — there were voluminous amounts of written discovery, as well as twenty-seven depositions of various percipient witnesses and experts. Kim Dec. at 2. On March 11, 2014, the Orange County Department of Child Support Services (hereinafter “Department”) filed a Notice of Lien in this action against Julian Albarado, Jr. in accordance with C.C.P. Section 708.410. Kim Dec. at § 3. The Notice of Lien was served on Plaintiffs’ counsel on that same date. Kim Dec. at 3. The Department filed its notice approximately two years after CZR’s lien for attorneys’ fees in connection with its representation of Plaintiffs in this matter. Kim Dec. at § 3. After much negotiation, on February 25, 2016, the parties agreed to settlementofthe case. Kim Dec. at | 4. Through the parties’ negotiation process, the parties decided that the benefits oflitigating the case were outweighed by the fees and risks associated with suchlitigation. Kim Dec. at § 4. The decision was made by Plaintiff Julian Albarado that he would dismiss his claims and that his sister, Bertha Albarado, would settle her case for a nominal sum to reimburse her for funeral expenses she incurred for burying their father. Kim Dec. at § 4. Discovery had revealed that Plaintiff Julian Albarado lacked a close relationship with the deceased that could otherwise support a claim for damages for wrongful death. Kim Dec.at § 4. To make prosecuting this matter even more complicated, Plaintiff Albarado had an extensive criminal history that included six felony convictions. Kim Dec.at § 4. In short, Plaintiff Albarado did not make a good plaintiff and his presence in the BL PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 708.440(b) N O e e 1 N n B R W w W N O N N D N D N N N N N R E e m e m e d ma m a e m e m c o 1 A N U n B R A W N =m , O N Y I R E W N — - o o lawsuit diminished the value of an already difficult case. Kim Dec. at § 4. In order to facilitate settlement with Ms. Albarado, CZR agreed to a drastic reduction in its attorneys’ fees to allow for reimbursement of Ms. Albarado’s funeral related expenses. Kim Dec. at § 4. Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs collectively total to $169,549.52, which far exceed the settlement amount of $140,000.00. Kim Dec. at § 4. The present motion, and the requested dismissal, is not filed to avoid the Department’s lien. The motion is filed to terminate this litigation since the continuance of thislitigation will not yield any payment to Plaintiffs due to the disputed nature of liability and the exorbitant costs incurred in litigating this matter. Granting of this motion would complete the final step in terminating this case. Despite having knowledge of the above, the Departmentinsists on attempting to enforce a lien on this case. For the reasons set forth herein below, Plaintiffs’ motion to approve settlement and to dismiss the claims of Plaintiff Julian Albarado, Jr. should be granted. II. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Legal Standards For Approval and Dismissal Under Section 708.440 Code of Civil Procedure section 708.440 provides as follows: (a) Except as provided in subdivision (c) of Section 708.410, unless the judgment creditor's money judgmentis first satisfied or the lien is released, the judgment recovered in the action or special proceeding in favor of the judgment debtor may not be enforced by a writ or otherwise, and no compromise, dismissal, settlement, or satisfaction of the pending action or special proceeding or the judgment procured therein may be entered into by or on behalf of the judgment debtor, without the written consent of the judgment creditor or authorization by order of the court obtained under subdivision (b). (b) Upon application by the judgment debtor, the court in which the action or special proceeding is pending or the judgment procured therein is entered may,in its discretion, after a hearing, make an order described in subdivision (a) that may include such terms and conditions as the court deems necessary. The application for an order under this subdivision shall be made on noticed motion. The notice of motion shall be served on the judgmentcreditor. Service shall be made personally or by mail. The trial court has discretion in approving a settlement pursuant to Section 708.440. Casa Eva I Homeowners Association v. Ani Construction & Tile, Inc., 134 Cal.App.4th 771, 778 (2005). The purpose of section 708.440 is “to prevent a judgment debtor, with or without the assistance of other 4- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 708.440(b) © © 0 J O O w n B A W ) N O R D N N N N N N OR , m m , E m m e m e m ® J A N n n B R A W N R O Y E E W Y — O o parties to the settlement agreement, from structuring a settlement so it receives benefits while evading the lien of the judgment creditor, absent appropriate equitable considerations.” Oldham v. California Capital Fund, Inc., 109 Cal.App.4th 421, 430 (2003). On a motion to approve a settlement under section 708.440, a court must determine that “the agreementis not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties.” Id. at 431-432. In order to accomplish this, “the superior court must understand the size of the settlement pie, how the pie is sliced, and who is getting which slice.” Id. at 432. B. The Settlement and Dismissal of Julian Albarado, Jr.’s Claims Was Done In Good Faith And Was Not An Attempt To Circumvent the Department’s Lien In Oldham, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at page 427, the judgment creditor objected to a settlement agreement involving a matter in which it had a judgmentlien on the ground that the terms regarding transfer of real property were uncertain, and there was a possibility that the uncertainty was created to evade the judgment lien. The appellate court explained that one purpose of the judgment creditor lien statutes is “to prevent the judgment debtor, with or without the active assistance of other parties to the settlement agreement, from structuring a settlementso it receives benefits while evading the lien of the judgmentcreditor, absent appropriate equitable considerations.” Id. at p. 430. Analogizing approval of a settlement under section 708.440 to the type of evaluation required for a class action settlement or a good faith settlement under sections 877 and 877.6, the Oldham court held that the trial court must consider any facts tending to show that the settlement was structured to avoid a judgment creditor lien. Oldham, supra, at p. 432. It noted that “[t]he particular facts relevant to evasion of the lien will vary from case to case because of differences in the property interests involved, variations in the relationships among the entities involved, and differences in the way transfers of interests in property are structured.” Ibid. In the absence of facts showing collusion, the trial court has the discretion to approve the settlement over the objections of the judgment creditor. See Cal. Law Revision Com. com., 17 West's Ann.Code Civ. Proc. (2009 ed.) foll. § 708.440, p. 374; see also The Enforcement of Judgments Law (1982) 16 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (1982) p. 1521 [court may authorize or approve settlement despite opposition ofjudgment creditor “when the court concludesthatit is in the best interests of the parties to settle]. -5- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 708.440(b) © 0 ~ J O N W n B A W N D N N N N N N D N N N = m m m s e s s e w w ~ ~ A N W n B R A W N = O C N R E W I N D — O o Here, the Department has surmised that the reason for the dismissal of Plaintiff Julian Albarado's claims was done for the sole purpose of attempting "to circumvent the Department's lien.” Nothing could be further from the truth and there is ample evidence that shows otherwise. This wrongful death action involved the deceased, Julian Albarado, Sr., who was struck and killed by a semi-truck and a passenger vehicle while lawfully crossing a street as a pedestrian. Liability was heavily disputed as the accident was unwitnessed and there was no evidence to reconstruct the incident. In addition, Plaintiff Albarado lacked a close relationship with the deceased that could otherwise support a claim for damages for wrongful death. To make prosecuting this matter even more complicated, Plaintiff Albarado had an extensive criminal history that included six felony convictions. In short, Plaintiff Albarado did not make a good plaintiff and his presence in the lawsuit diminished the value of an already difficult case. The decision was made by Plaintiff Albarado that he would dismiss his claims and thathis sister, Bertha Albarado, would settle her case for a nominal sum to reimburse her for funeral expenses she incurred for burying their father. Plaintiff Albarado will not see a penny of the settlement funds and he will not benefit from the settlement provisions in any way as he seeks to simply dismiss his claims and walk away from the case. The Department should not be permitted to derail the parties’ good faith attempts to settlement and terminate this drawn out litigation based only on an unfounded suspicion that Plaintiff's Albarado’s dismissalis to avoid its Notice of Lien. C. The Department Seeks To Enforce A Lien On A No Recovery Case This is a no recovery case. During the pendency oflitigation, significant costs were incurred due to the complex nature of the case and heavily disputed liability. Kim Dec. at § 5. Plaintiffs’ counsel, CZR, incurred total costs of $63,549.52, excluding attorneys’ fees. Kim Dec. at 5. Attached as Exhibit “A” is CZR’s cost worksheet/spreadsheet for the Albarado matter. Twenty-seven (27) depositions were taken of various witnesses and experts, which amounted to $24,766.72. Kim Dec.at 5. Attached as Exhibit “B” is Atkinson Baker Court Reporter’s total invoice for the depositions taken in this matter. Upon information and belief, referring counsel, Maryam Parman, incurred approximately $43,000.00 in additional costs associated with litigation. Kim Dec. at 5. Total costs for litigating this heavily disputed liability case over the past five years are approximately $106,549.52. io PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 708.440(b) O O 0 0 S N n n B R A W N N O N N D N N N N N N e m e e e m E e e m 0 J S N U n BR A W N R C Y Y E W N O o Kim Dec. at § 5. As such,litigation costs in this case are more than 75 percent of the total recovery of the settlement amount. Kim Dec. at § 5. In addition to the above, CZR’s retainer agreement with Plaintiffs calls for a 45% contingency fee. Kim Dec. at § 6. This percentage was agreed between Plaintiffs and CZR due to the considerable amount of time estimated to litigate this heavily disputed liability case, the high risks involved in litigating the case, and the inability of Plaintiffs to pay any portion ofthe costs associated with litigation. Kim Dec. at § 6. CZR’s attorneys’ fees lien in connection with this matter are $63,000.00. Kim Dec.at § 6. These attorneys’ fees are reasonable as CZR has spent a considerable amount of time on this case. Kim Dec.at § 6. Plaintiff has engaged in extensive motion practice, including opposing Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Kim Dec. at § 6. Further, Plaintiffs have engaged in extensive discovery that required voluminous amounts of written discovery, as well as twenty-seven depositions of various percipient witnesses and experts. Kim Dec. at § 6. Because CZR spent a substantial amount of time on this case, CZR is entitled to an attorneys’ fee lien of $63,000.00 from any scttlement proceeds. Kim Dec. at § 6. After fees and costs, there will be virtually no net recovery for Bertha Alvarado. Kim Dec. at § 7. The settlement terms provide that Defendant will make a payment of $140,000.00 to Plaintiff Bertha Albarado and herattorneys in exchange for an agreementfor her to dismiss her wrongful death claim. Kim Dec. at § 7. However, Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs collectively total to $169,549.52, which far exceed the settlement amount. Kim Dec. at J 7. Any recovery on behalf of Plaintiff Bertha Albarado would be due to a drastic reduction in CZR’s attorneys’ fees to allow for reimbursement of Ms. Albarado’s funeral related expenses. Kim Dec. at § 7. Neither Plaintiff will be walking away from this case with any money. To besure, Julian Albarado will not be getting a single penny. There will be no money coming to Julian Albarado from the settlement proceeds. Plaintiff Bertha Albarado will only receive a nominal amount of money for reimbursement of funeral expenses for burying her father. The Department seeks to take this away from her. She should not be punished for the wrongdoings of her brother and forced to satisfy a lien for which she has absolutely no obligation. Ms. Albarado’s wrongful death rights are hers and only hers as J- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 708.440(b) O O 0 1 o N n n A W N — N N N N N N N D N N m E e m e m em a e m e s e a e d o w ~ ~ S N n n R R W D = O S Y W S N R E W D = O an individual. The Department’s enforcement of a lien upon Ms. Albarado, who is not a judgment debtor, seeks an inequitable result. Because Julian Albarado receives nothing from the settlement with Defendants, the Department is entitled to nothing. D. Plaintiff’s Attorneys’ Costs and Fees Take Priority Over The Department’s Lien It is well recognized that the contractual lien of an attorney created before the action is filed has priority over the lien a judgment creditor obtains against the recoveries a judgment debtor may realize from a pending action. See Pangborn Plumbing Corp. v. Carruthers & Skiffington (2002) 97 Cal. App. 4th 1039, 1051-1052. While the priority of certain kinds of liens, for example, judgment liens,is dependent on the timing of the giving of proper notice (See Bluxome St. Associates v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 206 Cal. App. 3d 1149, 1158), no notice is required before a contractual lien for attorney's fees is valid and protected against a levy by a judgment creditor. Cetenko v. United California Bank, 30 Cal. 3d 528, 533). This is so because a contractual lien for attorney's fees, entered into before the client has succeeded in recovering any proceeds by way of litigation,is “first in time” as to such potential proceeds. Pangborn, Supra, 97 Cal. App 4" at pp. 1051. Thefairness of the fee agreement and the lien to secure it must be viewed as of the time the arrangement was made. Cetenko, Supra, 30 Cal. 3d at pp. 532). Here, the Departmentfiled its notice of lien on March 11, 2014 — approximately two years after CZR’s lien for attorneys’ fees in connection with its representation of Plaintiffs in this matter. Kim Dec. at § 6. The Departments lien is subordinate to CZR’s attorneys’ fees and costs because CZR’s wascreated first. Kim Dec. at 9 6. Because CZR’s attorneys’ fees lien was created first in time, its lien takes priority over the Department’s. Kim Dec. at § 6. The reasoning behind attorney lien priority is rooted in public policy. As explained by the California Supreme Court, “public policy favorsthis] conclusion... If an attorney's claim for a lien on the judgment based on a contract for fees earned prior to and in the action cannot prevail over the lien of a subsequent judgment creditor, persons with meritorious claims might well be deprived of legal representation because oftheir inability to pay legal fees or to assure that such fees will be paid out of the sum recovered in the latest lawsuit. Such a result would be detrimental not only to prospective litigants, but to their creditors as well.” Cetenko, Supra, 30 Cal. 3d at pp 535). Such is the case here. It is a principle of equity that Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ _8- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 708.440(b) © 0 J S N n s e W N = N O N N D N N N N N N m m E e e R E e e e e e e 0 0 ~ ~ O N W n b h W N = O o 0 e d BR E W D D = O labor, skills, materials, and willingness to take the risk of no recovery that resulted in creation ofthe settlement proceeds should be entitled to take priority in payment from that same source. Consequently, CZR’s attorneys’ fees and costs take priority to the Department’s lien. However,after fees and costs, there will be no recovery for Plaintiffs other than reimbursement to Bertha Alvarado for funeral expenses. Because Bertha Albarado is not a judgment debtor, and Julian Albarado will take nothing from the settlement proceeds, the Departmentis not entitled to anything. II.CONCLUSION Forall the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court issue an order authorizing the dismissal of Plaintiff Julian Albarado, Jr. as a party to this lawsuit and approving the settlement between Plaintiff Bertha Albarado and Defendants pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 708.440(b). Since the settlement and dismissal of Mr. Albarado is not structured to avoid the Department’s liens, but only to terminate this hopeless litigation, good cause exists and the motion should be granted in the interests ofjustice. DATED: April (2, 2017 CARPENTER, ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY, LLP JOHN C. CARPENTER BRIAN J. KIM Attorneys for Plaintiffs, BERTHA ALBARADO and JULIAN ALBARADO,JR. -9- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 708.440(b) © 0 N N S N n n RA E W N N O N N R N N = E e e s = e e ® a A A h h RE R W N = , D S V e N n R E W I N D = D DECLARATION OF BRIAN J. KIM I, BRIAN J. KIM declare thatif called as a witness,I could and would competently testify to the following ofmy own personal knowledge: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. All of the following facts are within my own personal knowledge and if sworn as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. Plaintiffs signed the Retainer Agreement with Carpenter Zuckerman & Rowley, LLP on September 17, 2012. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint against Defendants on October 10, 2012. Liability was heavily disputed as the accident was unwitnessed and there was no evidence to reconstruct the incident. As a result, the discovery process involved a tremendous amount of work — there were voluminous amounts of written discovery, as well as twenty-seven depositions of various percipient witnesses and experts. 3. On March 11, 2014, the Orange County Department of Child Support Servicesfiled a Notice ofLien in this action against Julian Albarado, Jr. in accordance with C.C.P. Section 708.410. The Notice of Lien was served on Plaintiffs’ counsel on that same date. The Departmentfiled its notice approximately two years after CZR’s lien for attorneys’ fees in connection with its representation of Plaintiffs in this matter. The Department’s lien is subordinate to CZR’s attorneys’ fees and costs because CZR’s was created first. Because CZR’s attorneys’ fees lien was created first in time,its lien takes priority over the Department’s. 4. After much negotiation, on February 25, 2016,the parties agreed to settlement ofthe case. Through the parties’ negotiation process, the parties decided that the benefits oflitigating the case were outweighed by the fees and risks associated with such litigation. The decision was made by Plaintiff Julian Albarado that he would dismiss his claims and that his sister, Bertha Albarado, would settle her case for a nominal sum to reimburse her for funeral expenses she incurred for burying their father. Discovery had revealed that Plaintiff Julian Albarado lacked a close relationship with the deceased that could otherwise support a claim for damages for wrongful death. To make prosecuting this matter even more complicated, Plaintiff Albarado had an extensive criminal history that included -10- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 708.440(b) © 0 N N O N n n p k W N = N O N ON D N N N N N N m s e e e m e s e e e s e s 0 J O A U n RA R W N R D O W O N N N R E W I N D O o six felony convictions. In short, Plaintiff Albarado did not make a good plaintiff and his presence in the lawsuit diminished the value of an already difficult case. In order to facilitate settlement with Ms. Albarado, CZR agreed to a drastic reduction in its attorneys’ fees to allow for reimbursement of Ms. Albarado’s funeral related expenses. Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs collectively total to $169,549.52, which far exceed the settlement amount of $140,000.00. of During the pendency oflitigation, significant costs were incurred due to the complex nature of the case and heavily disputed liability. Plaintiffs’ counsel, CZR, incurred total costs of $63,549.52, excluding attorneys’ fees. Attached as Exhibit “A” is CZR’s cost worksheet/spreadsheet for the Albarado matter. Twenty-seven (27) depositions were taken of various witnesses and experts, which amounted to $24,766.72. Attached as Exhibit “B” is Atkinson Baker Court Reporter’s total invoice for the depositions taken in this matter. Upon information and belief, referring counsel, Maryam Parman, incurred approximately $43,000.00 in additional costs associated with litigation. Total costs for litigating this heavily disputed liability case over the past five years are approximately $106,549.52. Assuch,litigation costs in this case are more than 75 percent of the total recovery of the settlement amount. 6. In addition to the above, CZR’s retainer agreement with Plaintiffs calls for a 45% contingency fee. This percentage was agreed between Plaintiffs and CZR due to the considerable amount of time estimated to litigate this heavily disputed liability case, the high risks involved in litigating the case, and the inability of Plaintiffs to pay any portion of the costs associated with litigation. CZR’s attorneys’ fees lien in connection with this matter are $63,000.00. These attorneys’ fees are reasonable as CZR has spent a considerable amount of time on this case. Plaintiff has engaged in extensive motion practice, including opposing Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Further, Plaintiffs have engaged in extensive discovery that required voluminous amounts of written discovery, as well as twenty-seven depositions of various percipient witnesses and experts. Because CZR spent a substantial amount of time on this case, CZR is entitled to an attorneys’ fee lien of $63,000.00 from any settlement proceeds. 1 -11- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 708.440(b) O O 0 3 S N U n bs e W N N O N N N N D N N N N N m m E e e m e e e e e m 0 ~ J A N W n W N = D O v e N N n R e W N O o 7. After fees and costs, there will be virtually no net recovery for Bertha Alvarado. The settlement terms provide that Defendant will make a payment of $140,000.00 to Plaintiff Bertha Albarado and her attorneys in exchange for an agreement for her to dismiss her wrongful death claim. However, Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs collectively total to $169,549.52, which far exceed the settlement amount. Any recovery on behalf of Plaintiff Bertha Albarado would be due to a drastic reduction in CZR’s attorneys’ fees to allow for reimbursement of Ms. Albarado’s funeral related expenses. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this {2-day of April 2017, at Beverly Hills, California. Rome Brian J. Kim -12- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 708.440(b) EXHIBIT “A” 8:50 A M 0 1 / 1 9 1 7 A c c r u a l B a s i s C Z & R L L P P r o j e c t C o s t s Detail A B c| D January 2012 thrdugh January 2017 G H I 1 S o u r c e N a m e T y p e D a t e N u m M e m o A m o u n t 2 Albarado, Julian 10/15/10 - o o | [ o o o o 3 A B C Legal Services |Bil | 0 2 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 3 7 7 7 0 8 4 9 59.50 4 A B C Legal Services B i l l 02/28/2013 7 7 7 0 8 4 5 a o o 59.50 5 A B C Legal Services Bill | 0 2 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 3 | 7 7 7 0 8 4 6 o o ° 40.00 6 A B C Legal Services B i l l 12/13/2012 7 7 6 3 6 7 4 18.50 7 A B C Legal Services Bill 12/06/2012 7 7 7 0 8 5 0 BE o o 59.50 8 B A B C Legal Services 12/27/2012 7 3 3 7 7 0 8 1s 8.50 9 A B I D o c u m e n t Support Services | 0 3 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 3 O P P 8 1 5 0 1 - 0 3 - 0 1 o o l L 87.68 1 0 A B I D o c u m e n t Support S e r v i c e s B i l l 0 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 3 O P P 8 1 5 0 1 - 0 1 - 0 1 C l o o { 172.17 1 1 A B I Document S u p p o r t Services Bil | 0 2 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 3 O P P 8 1 5 0 1 - 0 2 - 0 1 - 7 4 5 0 12 | ABIDocument Support S e r v i c e s Bill 10/24/2014 OPP102651-01-01 Med Recs Stanton Detox re: Julian Albarado 73.96 13 Accident Research Specialists, PLLC Bil | 08/11/2015 13625 Depo Michael Sutton re: Julian Albarado 1,462.50 14 A m e r i c a n Express - 24004 Bill | 03/11/2016 A M E X 9-24004/Cost One Legal re: Julian Albarado 9.95 15 | American Express - 39004 B i l l 10/17/2014 A M E X 5-39004/Cost One L e g a l re: Julian Albarado 99.95 1 6 . American Express - 39004 Bill 10/17/2014 A M E X 5-39004/Cost O n e Legal re: Julian Albarado 69.95 O r a n g e C o u n t y Civil Court filing re: Bertha [ 1 7 A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s - 3 9 0 0 4 B i l l 01/18/2015 A M E X 5-39004/Cost Albarado 7.50 [Orange County Civil Courtfiling re: Bertha | BN 1 8 |American E x p r e s s - 3 9 0 0 4 Bill 0 1 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 5 A M E X 5-39004/Cost Albarado 7.50 O r a n g e C o u n t y Civil Court filing re: Julian 1 9 |American E x p r e s s - 3 9 0 0 4 Bill 1 0 1 n"8 / 2 0 1 5 A M E X 5-39004/Cost Albarado 15.00 2 0 ) A m e r i c a n Express - 39004 Bill 03/18/2015 A M E X 5-39004/Cost O n e Legalre: Julian Albarado 9.95 21 ~ ‘AmericanExpress - 39004 Bill 03/18/2015 A M E X 5-39004/Cost Orange County Civil Court re: Julian Albarado 12.05 2 2 ‘American Express- 39004 Bill 03/18/2015 A M E X 5-39004/Cost Orange County Civil Court re: Julian Albarado 7.50 Avalon Hotel Travel E x p e n s e re: Julian Bi 2 3 | A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s - 3 9 0 0 4 Bill 04/17/2015 A M E X 5-39004/Cost Albarado 654.44 [Photo and Video of polic evidence for expert - 2 4 ‘Arnold Calleros- fees i 07/11/2014 Reimb Exp/Cost reconstruction re: Julian Albarado 236.00 Babcock Depos convert toAudiot o send to U S | 2 5 | A m o l d Calleros- fees Bill 02/24/2015 R e i m b Exp/Cost Forensics re: Julian Albarado 75.00 2 6 - Bank of America/8586 Bill 06/30/2014 BofA 8586/Cost Court Call re: Julian Albarado 8 6 . 0 0 2 7 B a n k of A m e r i c a / 8 5 8 6 11/30/2014 B o f A 8 5 8 6 / C o s t Court Call re: Bertha Albarado 116.00 2 8 B a n k of A m e r i c a / 8 5 8 6 Bill 03/31/2015 B o f A 8 5 8 6 / C o s t Court Call re: Julian Albarado 116.00 P a g e 1 of 5 8:50 AM C Z & R LLP Acoruol Basis Project Costs Detail A B Ic] D January 2012 thrdugh ganugry 2017 G H I 1 Source N a m e Type Date N u m M e m o Amount O r a n g e C o u n t y S u p e r i o r C o u r t re: Julian 2 9 B a n k of America/8586 B i l |O f01/31/2016 B o f A Visa 8 5 8 6 / C o s t | A l b a r a d o I 90.00 3 0 1 | B a n k ofA m e r i c a / 8 5 8 6 B i n 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 6 BofA8 5 8 6 / C o s t a C o u r t C a l l e : Julian A l b a b a d o i 116.00 3 1 ] © B a n k o f A m e r i c a l 8 s 8 5 o o Bill | 08/31/2016 BofA 8586 C o s t [CourtCall re:Julianan Albarado - 1 1 6 . 0 0 5 2 ] | © Bankof A m e r i c a l g s s s Bill 08/31/2016] BofA 8 5 8 6 Cost Court Call re: Julian Albarado } 86.00 — ~ Transcripto f D e p oo f ElisaM e n d o z a re:Julian 3 3 Barkley Court Reporters B i l l 0 3 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 4 4 5 6 8 8 5 A l b a r a d o c o ] 592.96 H e m — — — — — — h h I - — Transcript of D e p o Off Bill Sweetre: Julian 3 4 o o B a r k l e y C o u r t R e p o r t e r s 0 7 / 0 7 / 2 0 1 4 4 6 1 0 4 3 ~ A l b a r a d o o o | 3 4 5 . 8 7 Transcirpt of S e a nVE. E n l o eM D r e :J u l i a s y \ . B a r k l e y C o u r t R e p o r t e r s | 07/09/2014 4 6 1 3 3 2 A l b a r a d o 326.34 D e p o W e s t o n H a d l e y Officer re: Julian 3 6 E E BarkleyC o u r t R e p o r t e r s B i l l 09/1 0 / 2 0 1 4 4 8 4 1 4 4 ‘ A l b a r a d o o o - B B 2 7 7 . 6 9 3 7 B a r k l e y Court R e p o r t e r s B i l | 0 3 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 5 4 7 3 8 2 1 C o C o p y ofD e p o Brad Avrit re: Julian Albarado | 2,064.57 3 8 | o o o o | BiodynamicR e s e a r c h C o r p o r a t i o n ~ ~ Bill 10/26/2015] 10262015A lAlbarado E x p e r tD sD e p o F e ere: Julian a n A l b a r a d o | 1,800.00 3 9 l e a Boykoff Investigations ~ ~ B i l 0 3 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 3 0 2 2 7 1 3 1 1130-2127 | 2 7 5 0 0 4 0 | cal West Attorney Services,i n c . ~ ~ B i l | 0 3 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 / 9 2 4 3 / C o s t AttoreyServicerere:: Julian Albarado | 95.00 4 1 I . C h a s e Cardmember S e r v i c e s - 6 2 4 2 B i l l 0 3 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 3 0 2 2 8 1 3 J | 78.00 a f | C h a s e CardmemberS e r v i c e s - 6 2 4 2 B i l l | 03/21/2013 o 2 2 8 4 3 B 1 5 9 8 5 4 3 | C h a s e Cardmember S e r v i c e s - 6 2 4 2 B i l l 0 3 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 3 / 0 2 2 8 1 3 1 S o BN 9.95 Travel to Las V e g a s for Vehicle Inspection re: a 4 C i t iCards B i l 0 8 / 1 9/2014 Reimb E x p / C o s t _ | A l b a r a d o BB - o o BN 4 3 8 2 0 4 5 S o _ ClariumI n v e s t i g a t i o n s B i l ~ 0 3 / 0 7 / 2 0 1 3 / 3 2 9 o o 663.00 4 6 C o u r t Appearance P r o f e s s i o n a l s (Bill | 0 4 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 6 68280 | O r d e r to S h o w C a u s ere : Julian Albarado ] 75.00 4 7 o o Erik H a r p e r / E x p e n s e s 04/28/2014R e i m b E x p l C o s t s Vehicle Inspectitonre :re: Julian n A l b a r a d o 30.80 4 8 (Exponent Inc. B i | 0 3 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 5 0 3 3 0 2 0 1 5 Albarado E x p e r tD eDe p o F e e re: Julian n A l b a r a d o | © 490.00 4 9 | Exponentinc. 03/30/2015 03302015 Albarado Expert D e p o Fee 2nd Hour re: Julian Albarado 490.00 5 0 Fedex - act 1904-5809-1/Cost 01/23/2015 2-916-49770/Cost F e d E x Delivery Charger e : JulianA l b a r a d o B 34.12 5 1 F e d e x - act 1904-5809-1/Cost 02/06/2015 2-930-81804/Cost F e d E x DeliveryC lCharge r e : , re: Julian A l b a r a d o 2 4 1 4 5 2 F e d e x - act 1904-5809-1/Cost 11/20/201 5 5 - 2 3 0 - 8 3 2 9 2 / C o s t F e d E x Delivery C h a r g e | re: Julian n A l b a r a d o ) 8.28 5 3 ‘Golden State Overnight 01/31/2015 7 2 0 4 3 4 / C o s t o o Delivery S e r Service re: Julian Albarado . 4 7 . 2 0 5 4 Golden State Overnight o o B i l 02/28/2015 2739581/Cost ] Delivery Servicer e :Julian Albarado I 51 1 5 5 5 | Golden State Overnight Bill 03/15/20152750700/Cost D e l i v e r y Charger e : JuliaA l b a r a d o | 5108 5 6 G o l d e n State Overnight Bill 04/15/20152 8 0 1 8 5 6 / C o s t o o Delivery S e r v i c e sre: JulianAlbarado . | 1 6 . 0 8 P a g e 2 of § 8:50 AM C Z & R LLP 0 1 / 1 9 / 1 7 . . Accrual Basis P r o j e c t C o s t s D e t a i l A c| D January 2012 thrdugh ganudry 2017 G H l 1 S o u r c e N a m e T y p e D a t e N u m M e m o A m o u n t 57 Golden State Overnight 07/23/20152791071 ( 3 / 3 1 ) Overnight Delivery Service re:Julian Albarado | 11.89 58 Golden State Overnight il | 07/23/2015 2791071 (3/31) Overnight Delivery Service re: Julia Albarado 1 1 . 8 9 59 Golden State Overnight Bill 07/23/2015 2791071 (3/31) Overnight Delivery Service re: Julian Albarado 21.17 60 Golden State Overnight Bill 04/15/2016 3048318/Cost ~ Overnight Delivery Charge re: Berta Albarado | 11.78 | | Mileage to/from Court and parking re: Julian 6 1 Henry Peacor/Expenses Bill 04/13/2015 R e i m b Exp/Cost ~ ~ A l b a r a d o o o 65.45 6 2 Judicate W e s t B i l l 01/12/2015/01122015 Albarado Mediation Fee re: JulianA l b a r a d o 1,111.67 63 Louis M Bubala Ill B i l | 07/12/2013 07122013 Albarado Retainer re: Albarado v Ahern | 2500.00 6 4 L o u i s M B u b a l a lil Bill 0 7 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 3 0 7 1 5 2 0 1 3 A l b a r a d o a R e t a i n e r r e A l b a r a d o v A h e r n C o | 2 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 o o Inv #1692623, Inv #1701196 and #1708042 6 5 L o u i s M B u b a l a lll Bill 0 9 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 3 1 7 0 8 0 4 2 (finalb i l l re. Julian A l b a r a d o | 2 , 1 7 2 . 2 0 Certified C o p y of Transcripts re: Albarado v 6 6 M & C Corporation (Sousa Court Reporters) Bill 07/23/2013 620508 M e n d o z a C o | 3 9 4 8 6 5 Transcripts B e n R o m e r o / David A n g e l re: Julian 6 7 M & C Corporation (Sousa Court Reporters) Bill 02/10/2014 622711 Albarado o o o o 253.70 6 8 M & C Corporation (Sousa Court Reporters) Bill 0 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 2 / 6 2 3 6 3 0 | Transcript of D w a n a Cooper re: Julian Albarado 497.85 6 9 ' M & C Corporation (Sousa Court R e p o r t e r s ) B i l l 0 5 / 0 8 / 2 0 1 4 623597 Transcript Joh Crews re: Julian Albarado 969.40 ‘Copy of Transcript Randall R e c o r d re: Julian | al 7 0 | M & C Corporation (Sousa Court Reporters) 10/29/2014 625172 Albarado 295.35 7 1 ‘MacDonald Fernandez L L P | | 0 3 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 3 2273 272.50 7 2 MacDonald Fernandez LLP Bill 04/30/2013 04/30 Stmt Albarado's Claim re Ahern Rentals 6.40 7 3 MacDonald Fernandez L L P Bill 01/31/2015 2273 J. Albarado Professional Services re: Julian Albarado 150.00 " S a n t a A n a Polica Dept Recs re: Julian r r 7 4 M a c r o P r o , Inc Bill 0 4 / 0 8 / 2 0 1 4 0 4 0 8 2 0 1 4 A l b a r a d o A l b a r a d o 4 9 2 . 0 6 "Recs from Rite Aid and Orange County Crime | 7 5 M a c r o P r o , Inc 0 4 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 4 | 4 5 6 4 7 9 - X 3 re: Julian A l b a r a d o 1 3 9 . 4 0 "Recs Santa Ana Police Dept re: Julian r r 7 6 o o M a c r o P r o , Inc 0 5 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 4 4 5 6 4 7 9 - X 4 A l b a r a d o 3 0 . 0 0 7 7 [Mark Sanders, Ph.D. 03/20/2015 03202015 Albarado Expert Depo Fee re: Julian Albarado 950.00 7 8 Medical Legal Spider 07/08/2013 2013-1248 M e d Recs re: Julian Albarado 211.50 7 9 Momentum Engineering Corp. 03/18/2015 03182015 Albarado Expert Depo Fee re: Julian Albarado 340.00 8 0 Momentum Engineering Corp. Bill 03/18/2015/03182015 Albarado Expert Depo Fee re: Julian Albarado 340.00 P a g e 3 of 5 8:50AM CZ&RLLP 0119/17 . . Accrual Basis P r o j e c t C o s t s Detail A B [c| D January 2012 thrdugh ganugry 2017 G H 1 S o u r c e N a m e T y p e D a t e N u m M e m o A m o u n t m i i — — 2 Add'l h o u r s of E x p e r t D e p o T e s t i m o n y re: 8 1 M o m e n t u m Engineering Corp. Bill | 03/19/2015 16026 |Julian A l b a r a d e | 680.00 8 2 Norco Bill 01/13/2013 460851 act 1032368 | 1691 8 3 Norco Bill | 01/20/2013 462856 act 1032368 15.49 84 Norco Bill 07/21/2013 518195 Delivery Chargesre: Julian Albarado 1 7 . 9 0 8 5 Norco Bill 01/27/2014 5 7 0 8 1 6 / c o s t Delivery Charge re: Bertha Albarado | 15.18 8 6 Norco Bill 06/08/2014 613065/Cost Delivery Services re: Julian A l b a r a d o 32.74 | Albarado v. Babock 30-2012-00604351 Julian 8 7 On-Call Legal Bill 02/17/2016 1 3 8 5 5 6 Albarado 1 2 5 0 0 Albarado v. B a b c o c k 3 0 - 2 0 1 2 - 0 0 6 0 4 3 5 1 Bertha 8 8 On-Call Legal Il 02/17/2016 1 3 8 4 6 6 (Albarado 1 1 0 . 0 0 i ) | Albarado v. Babcock 30-2012-00604351 Bertha 8 9 On-Call L e g a l B i l l | 02/17/2016 138467 - /Albarado o o 110.00] [ Albarado v. B a b c o c k 3 0 - 2 0 1 2 - 0 0 6 0 4 3 5 1 Bertha 9 0 On-Call Legal Bill 02/17/2016 138557 /Albarado C o | 110.00 Albarado v. Babock 30-2012-00604351 Julian 9 1 | O n C a l l l e g a l B i l l 0 2 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 6 1 3 8 5 5 9 ~ ~ | A l b a r a d o I 85.00 9 2 Richard Benavidez-expense Bill 01/29/2014 Reimb Exp/Cost D e o p re: Estate of Julian Albarado 65.35 93] | Richard Benavidez-expense Bill 03/14/2014 R e i m b Exp/Cost D e p o re: Estate of Julian Albarado 74.35 9 4 | R i c h a r d Benavidez-expense Bill | 12/29/2014 Reimb Exp/Cost Court Hearing re: Julian Albarado 54.65 Mileage and parking Depo re: Estate of Julian 9 5 | | S a r k O h a n i a n - e x p B i l l 07/31/2013 E x p / C o s t Albarado 51.69 S96 | S a r k O h a n i a n - e x p | 02/12/2014 Reimb Exp/Cost Depo re: Julian Albarado 64.40 9 7 ~ ~ s a k O h a n i a n - e x p B i l 02/12/2014 Reimb Exp/Cost Depo re: Julian Albarado 64.40 9 8 S a r k O h a n i a n e x p Bill | 04/28/2014 Reimb Exp/Apr Costs Depo re: Julian Albarado 56.10 9 9 Sark Ohanian-exp BN Bill | 06/26/2014 R e i m b Exp/Cost819.15 D e p o re: Julian Albarado 65.90 1 0 0 ~ S a r k Ohanian-exp Bil 06/26/2014 Reimb Exp/Cost819.15 Depo re: Julian Albarado 65.90 1 0 1 | |Sark Ohanian-exp Bill 09/29/2014 Reimb Exp/Cost July Depo re: Julian Albarado 65.90 1 0 2 |Sark O h a n i a n - e x p B i l l 09/29/2014 R e i m b Exp/Cost July D e p o re: Julian Albarado 65.90 1 0 3 S a r k O h a n i a n - e x p Bill 09/29/2014 Reimb Exp/Cost July P D Inspection re: Julian Albarado 56.00 1 0 4 | B S a r k O h a n i a n - e x p Bill 09/29/2014 R e i m b Ex/Cost A u g Inspection re: Julian Albarado 54.00 1 0 5 Sark Ohanian-exp . Bill 09/29/2014 R e i m b Ex/Cost A u g D e p o re: Julian Albarado 59.70 1 0 6 ] | S a r k Ohanian-exp - Bill 10/30/2014 R e i m b Exp/Cost D e p o re: Julian Albarado 68.60 1 0 7 Sark Ohanian-exp - Bill 04/14/2015 Reimb Exp/Cost D e p o re: Julian Albarado 47.20 1 0 8 Sark Ohanian-exp Bill 04/14/2015 R e i m b Exp/Cost D e p o re: Julian Albarado 41.70 P a g e 4 of § 8:50AM CZ&RLLP 0 1 / 1 9 / 1 7 Accrual Basis P r o j e c t C o s t s D e t a i l A B [c] D January 2012 thrdugh ganuary 2017 G [ H I 1 S o u r c e N a m e T y p e D a t e N u m M e m o A m o u n t 109 SemperScientificInc. Bill | 03/23/201503232013 Albarado E x p e r t Depo Fee re: JulianAlbarado 300.00 110 Semper Scientific Inc. Bill 03/23/2015 03232013 Albarado Expert Depo Fee 2nd Hourre: Julian Albarado 300.00 111 SemperScientificInc. Bill |03/30/20154064 |Expert Depo Feere: JulianAlbarado 375.00 112 Shelton & Associates Bill | 04/01/2015 059-14 ProfessionalServicesre: JulianAlbarado | 3,590.00 1 Bh i Professional Services 7/15/14 - 1/13/15 re: 1 1 3 Shelton & Associates Bill | 01/14/2015 0 5 9 - 1 4 A l b a r a d o Julian Albarado o o |2 , 8 1 9 . 0 0 D e p o Transcript J a m e s B a b c o c k re: Julian oo 1 1 4 Sousa Court Reporters 03/27/2015|03272015 Albarado Albarado o o 166.60 115 | Suzanne Dupee, M.D. 03/25/2015/03252015 Albarado Expert Depo Fee re: Julian Albarado 500.00 Expert D e p o Fee for Add'l Time re: Julian i 1 1 6 | | | S u z a n n e D u p e e , M . D . Bill 0 3 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 5 0 3 3 0 2 0 1 5 A l b a r a d o A l b a r a d o 5 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 7 W e x c o International Bill 05/20/2014 05202014 Albarado Expert Retention re: Julian Albarado 1,000.00 [ | — [Expert Witness D e p o Testimony of Philip = 1 1 8 Wexco International Bill 03/23/2015 798.447.D1 Rosescu re: Julian Albarado 250.00 1 1 9 Total Albarado, Julian 10/15/10 38,360.87 1 2 0 | T O T A L | | A oo ~ 738,360.87] P a g e 50of 5 EXHIBIT “B” 1119/2017 Invoices Welcome Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley (1192963) Log Out 8827 West Olympic Boulevard, AtkinsonBaker Beverly Hills, CA 90 211 COURT REPORTERS UPCOMING JOBS DASHBOARD JOBS SCHEDULE | TRANSCRIPTS INVOICES PROFILE Upcoming Jobs / Invoices <-- Select Account --> Enter J ob Number Q INVOICES | Search! From: ) To: [1/19/2017 | Search By: a [ 1/1/2008 Case Name albarado | O Se arch Past Jobs Search ~~ Search Tips All Invoices Refresh | | Dit Joh Date Case Adjuster Amount Amount Paid Balance Invoice N o Job No 07/09/2014 07/03/2014 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $678.00 $0.00 $678.00 104B4 A A807BB9 07/09/2014 07/01/2014 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $920.00 $0.00 $920.00 1045D A A8079AF 07/16/2014 07/01/2014 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $1,381.70 $0.00 $ 1,381.70 AB079AF AA A8079AF | 07/18/2014 07/03/2014 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $783.75 $0.00 $783.75 AS807BBI AA A807BB9 02/18/2015 07/01/2014 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $25.00 $0.00 $25.00 1045DB A80 79AF 02/18/2015 02/13/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $309.50 $0.00 $309.50 A901CAD A A A901C4D 02/18/2015 07/03/2014 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $60.00 $0.00 $60.00 104B4D A807 BB9Y 03/23/2015 03/20/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $764.75 $0.00 $764.75 11DFA A A903447 | 03/23/2015 03/19/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $958.75 $0.00 $958.75 11DDE A A90334B 03/25/2015 03/23/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $935.50 $0.00 $935.50 11E2B A A90 359F 03/25/2015 03/11/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $500.00 $0.00 $500.00 A902ESE AA A902ESE 03/26/2015 03/19/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $2,942.90 $0.00 $ 2,942.90 A90334B AA A90334B 03/27/2015 03/20/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $1,976.00 $0.00 $1,976.00 A903447 AA A903447 03/30/2015 03/26/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $545.00 $0.00 $545.00 11E6F A AS0375A | 03/30/2015 03/24/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $588.75 $0.00 $588.75 11E4E A A903698 04/02/2015 03/26/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $814.65 $0.00 $814.65 A90375A AA A90 375A 04/03/2015 03/23/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $457.10 $0.00 $457.10 A90359E AA A90 359E 04/07/2015 03/24/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $783.70 $0.00 $783.70 A903698 AA A903 698 04/07/2015 03/31/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $585.50 $0.00 $585.50 11F02 A A903ACO 04/07/2015 04/01/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $230.00 $0.00 $230.00 AS903BBI A A A903BB9 04/08/2015 03/24/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $185.00 $0.00 $185.00 11E4EB A90 3698 04/16/2015 03/23/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $1,702.85 $0.00 $1,702.85 A90359F A A A90359F | 04/24/2015 03/31/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $1,388.80 $0.00 $1,388.80 A903ACO A A AS03ACO 08/12/2015 08/06/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $1,002.50 $0.00 $1,002.50 12B2CA A908BE6 | 08/14/2015 08/06/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $2,273.97 $0.00 $2,273.97 A908BE6 A A A908BE6 10/20/2015 10/15/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $546.25 $0.00 $546.25 13177 A A90B71C 11/09/2015 10/15/2015 Estate of Julian Albarado v Ahern Rental $1,426.80 $0.00 $1,426.80 A90B71C A A AS0B71C $24,766.72 $0.00 $24,766.72 User: car ©1995-2017 Copyright Atkinson-Baker, Inc, Court Reporters. (1.0,10.22.13.1) VS 2015 version Legal Notices | Copyrights | Privacy Policies https://abias.com/acs3/Invoices.aspx 17 © 6 0 1 O N wn » A W N N N N N N N N N N R m , e e e e e e 0 ~ J O N W n b h W N = O O R E L Y = O PROOF OF SERVICE ] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ] ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ] I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 8827 West Olympic Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3613. On April 12, 2017, 1 served the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 708.440(b); DECLARATION OF BRIAN J. KIM on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosedin a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Scott Ghormley, Esq. Ghormley & Associates, APC 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 650 Irvine, CA 92612 Attorneyfor Defendants and Cross-complainants ELIAS MENDOZA and JESUS MENDOZA Jorge Martinez, Esq. Taylor Anderson LLP 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite §20 Irvine, CA 92612 Attorneyfor Defendant JAMES BABCOCK andAhern Rentals, Inc. Maryam Parman, Esq. AVREK LAW FIRM 9180 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, California 92618 Co-Counselfor Plaintiff Cleidin Atanous, Esq. 500 S. Kraemer Blvd., Suite 205 Brea, CA 92821 Attorneyfor Defendants and Cross-complainants ELIAS MENDOZA and JESUS MENDOZA Steven Eldred, Director Orange County Dept. of Child Support 1055 North Main Street Santa Ana, CA 92702 X BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: By sealing the envelope and placing it for collection and overnight delivery in a box regularly maintained by an overnight delivery service with delivery fees paid or provided for in accordance with ordinary business practices. -13- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 708.440(b) O O 0 ~ ~ O N w v k r W N N O N O N N N N N N N m m m e e e s = = e m e m 0 ~ J O N w n B A W N = D O OV W N N N N R E W d — - O o I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the aboveis true and correct. Executed on April 12, 2017, at Beverly Hills, California. IX Veronica Bustos -14- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO C.C.P.§ 708.440(b)