Shahriar Alikhani vs. Daniel Nikolic

Motion for Attorney Fees

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.November 10, 2016

© © 9 O&O wn Br WLW N = N O N N N N N N D N N ND = mm e m e m e m e e e s e e 0 9 O O Wn RA W N = OS V V N N V B E VL N D = OC ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, SALEK LAW FIRM County af Orange 2222 Martin St., Ste. 260 04/26/2018 at 04:54:00 PM Irvine, CA 92612 Clerk of the Superior Court Tel: 714/258-7800 By Jeanette Tomes-Wendoza, Deputy Clerk Fax: 714/258-7888 By: KEITH SALEK, Bar No. 218379 CAITLYN M. HOBBS, Bar No. 215990 Attorneys for Defendants, SHAHRIAR ALIKHANI, an individual, WHITNEY S. ALIKHANI, an individual, and SHAHRIAR ALIKHANI and WHITNEY S. ALIKHANI, as Trustees of the ALIKHANI FAMILY TRUST SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction — SHAHRIAR ALIKHANI, an individual, Case No.: 30-2016-00886234-CU-BC-CIC WHITNEY S. ALIKHANI, an individual, [Consolidated with Case No.: 30-2017- 00897786-CU-BC-CJC] Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS SHAHRIAR ALIKHANI, WHITNEY S. ALIKHANI, and SHAHRIAR ALIKHANI and WHITNEY S. ALIKHANI, as Trustees of the ALIKHANI FAMILY TRUST’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS AS PREVAILING PARTY ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANICS’ LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $94,184.09. VS. DANIEL NIKOLIC, an individual, doing business as NIKOLIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. DATE: June 26, 2018 TIME: 2:00 p.m. DEPT.: C11 Reservation No.: 72800818 Assigned for all purposes to: Honorable John C. Gastelum Department C11 Central Justice Center 700 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 Complaint filed: January 17, 2017 Trial date: None set. er e r N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N d SN N a N e N e N e N e N a SN N N N N SN N N N N ele ALIKHANIS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS PREVAILING PARTY ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANICS’ LIEN S:\Alikhani. Shahriar & Whitney Pleadings MOTION FOR FEES PREVAILING PARTY TO EXPNGEMENT MOTION\ALKIHANI MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE. doc SALEK LAW FIR Tel: 714/258-7800 Fax:714/258-78¢ © 00 3 Oo wn HH W V DO = N O N O N N O N O R N N N N E s E E e s e e E e e p ® uN O6 0 WU BA W N = O O VO ® N N Wn B A W ND = O TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 26, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. in Department C-11 of the above-entitled Court located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, DEFENDANTS SHAHRIAR ALIKHANI, WHITNEY S. ALIKHANI, and SHAHRIAR ALIKHANI and WHITNEY S. ALIKHANI, as Trustees of the ALIKHANI FAMILY TRUST (hereinafter “Alikhanis™ or “Defendants™), will move for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $94,184.09, which represents a request for attorneys’ fees of $83,321.50 and costs of $10,862.59. Defedants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Fee Motion™) is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP.”) §405.38 and the Court's Order of April 3. 2018, attached hereto as Exhibit I. Defendants have prevailed on the Motion to Expunge Mechanics’ Lein and have succeeded in having Daniel Nikolic dba Nikolic Construction Company (hereinafter “Nikolic” of Complainant”) dismiss its Enforcement Action, and release the mechanics’ lien just prior to the Hearing on the Motion To Expunge. This occurred after more than a year of heavily litigating the Motion to Expunge Mechanic's Lien which challenged the validity of Nikolic’s recorded mechanic's lien on the basis that Nikolic was unlicensed during a portion of the project and therefore not able to maintain an action and entitled to disgorgement pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code Section 7301 (b). Despite clear evidence to the contrary, Nikolic persisted in representing to the Court that he was a licensed contractor, when in fact he was not. (Hobbs Decl., § 5.) The Court has acknowledged that an attorneys’ fees motion is appropriate given the circumstances. Accordingly. Defendants submit the instant Fee Motion to recover their fees and costs incurred in having to prepare for and appear at expungement-related hearings through April 25, 201 8. 11 1 11 0 ALIKHANIS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS PREVAILING PARTY ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANICS’ LIEN $:\Alikhani, Shahriar & Whitney Pleadings MOTION FOR FEES PREVAILING PARTY TO EXPNGEMENT MOTION'ALKIHANI MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE. doc SALEK LAW FIR 5222 Martin St Ste 260 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel:714/258-780+ Fax714/258-78¢ © OO 0 NN O N Wn A W N = N O N O N O N O N O N O N C N N D e m e e E e e e ® uN O O Wn A W N = © V V © N S Wn PE V L D Defendants’ Fee Motion is based on this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Caitlyn M. Hobbs, on the Court's files and records in this matter, and on all other evidence and argument submitted at the hearing on this Fee Motion. DATED: April 26, 2018 SALEK LAW FIRM By: (HF KEMHYSALEK CAITLYN M. HOBBS Attorneys for Defendants SHAHRIAR ALIKHANI, an individual, and WHITNEY S. ALIKHANI, an individual Tas ALIKHANIS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS PREVAILING PARTY ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANICS’ LIEN S:\Alikhani, Shahriar & Whitney Pleadings MOTION FOR FEES PREVAILING PARTY TO EXPNGEMENT MOTION\ALKIHANT MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE. doc SALEK LAW FIR 5222 Martin St Ste Irvine, CA 92612 Tel: 714/258-7800 Fax:714/258-78¢ © 60 JN O O Wn HH WV N N = N O N N N N O R D N N N O N = e m Es ge e l p t E e Ee © uO O0 0 Wn BA W N = © OV © NN O O wn ob s W N = O | MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION The case stems from Plaintiff, Daniel Nikolic dba Nikolic Construction Company, the general contractor that performed work pursuant to contract on the home remodel for the Alikhanis. The Alikhanis sued Nikolic for breach of contract and defective work at the home. In turn, Nikolic claimed that the Alikhanis owed a remaining sum on the construction contract and filed an Enforcement Action to foreclose on mechancis’ lien. (Hobbs Decl., § 6.) At the outset, the Alikhanis discovered that Nikolic was unlicensed for a portion of the time that he performed work at the Alikhanis’ home and on that basis brought a Motion to Expunge Mechanics’ Lien and seek disgorgement of compensation paid to Nikolic. Nikolic refused to concede the facts regarding his licensure status, and continued to insist that he was licensed thus forcing the Alikhanis to conduct extensive discovery and file multiple briefings on the matter with the Court, all in furtherance of their Motion to Expunge Mechanics’ Lien. (Hobbs Decl., § 7.) Ultimately, there was no further basis for denying the lack of licensure, and Nikolic had to concede that he was not licensed, and he released the Mechanics’ Lien and dismissed the Enforcement Action altogether. Based upon Plaintiffs dismissal of the action on the eve of the hearing date, the oral argument hearing on the Expungement Motion was taken off calendar by the Court. (Hobbs Decl., §8.) The Court further confirmed via Order on April 3, 2018, that once Nikolic released the Mechanics’ Lien “the Motion to Expunge [will] be MOOT, with the exception of the issue of attorneys’ fees.” (Declaration of Caitlyn M. Hobbs (hereinafter “Hobbs Decl.”), Exh. 1.) The Mechanics’ Lien has been released. and the affirmative claims dismissed, and now the only issue remaining is the motion on attorneys’ fees. (Hobbs Decl., Exh. 2 & 3.) Accordingly. the Court has already determined that the Alikhanis are the prevailing party, and has ordered them to file the Motion for Fees. The Court stated, “[i]f Nikolic does release the lien, counsel are to reserve a date on the regular law and motion calendar for hearing on the issue of attorney fees, and to file the appropriate papers on that issue.” (Hobbs Decl., Exh. 1. 99.) For the forgoing reasons, the Alikhanis are the prevailing party on the Motion to Expunge, and they are entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure $405.38 in the i ALIKHANIS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS PREVAILING PARTY ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANICS’ LIEN S:\Alikhani, Shahriar & Whitney Pleadings\ MOTION FOR FEES PREVAILING PARTY TO EXPNGEMENT MOTION\ALKIHANI MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE. doc SALEK LAW FIR 5222 Martin St., Ste 260 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel:714/258-780 Fax:714/258-78¢ © © 9 Oo wn Bsr W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 amount of $94,184.09, which represents a request for attorneys’ fees of $83,321.50 and costs of $10,862.59. (Hobbs Decl., § 10, Exh. 4.) IL. AN AWARD OF FEES IS MANDATED BY C.C.P. SECTION 405.38, ALIKHANIS’ ATTORNEYS HAVE MADE MULTIPLE APPEARANCES RELATED TO DEFENDANT'S REPEATED AND UNJUSTIFIED OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANICS’ LIEN. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure $405.38, the court must direct that the party prevailing on a motion for expungement be awarded the reasonable attorney's fees and costs of making or opposing the motion, unless the court finds that the other party acted with substantial justification. or that other circumstances make the imposition of attorney's fees and costs unjust. The mandatory language of §405.38 is a specific change from former §409, which provided that a court “may” award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party. Here, the Court has already determined that the Alikhanis are the prevailing party. and has ordered them to file the Motion for Fees. The Court stated. “[i]f Nikolic does release the lien, counsel are to reserve a date on the regular law and motion calendar for hearing on the issue of attorney fees, and to file the appropriate papers on that issue.” (Hobbs Decl., Exh. 1.) In this case, Nikolic recorded his mechanics’ lien without substantial justification and his oppositions and objection to the Motion to Expunge were made without substantial justification. (Hobbs Decl, § 11.) First, the mechanics’ lien was improper as a matter of law on the basis that Nikolic was unlicensed during the course of the work at the Alikhanis. Second, once the issue of Nikolic’s unlicensed status was raised with the Court, Nikolic was unjustified in continuing to oppose the motion to expunge, which resulted in litigation of the matter for over a year prior to the dismissal on the eve of the hearing of the motion to expunge. Under these circumstances, imposition of an order for attorney's fees and costs against Nikolic is justified and mandated by Code of Civil Procedure $405.38. Plaintiff should not have to bear the attorneys’ fees and costs for the time spent in bringing its motion to expunge. The Alikhanis filed their Complaint on November 10, 2016, and the Motion to Expunge Mechanics’ Lien on November 28, 2016, to obtain an order expunging the mechanics’ lien recorded by Nikolic Construction. The hearing was set for February 21, 2017, but was continued and 15.L ALIKHANIS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS PREVAILING PARTY ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANICS’ LIEN SALEK LAW FIR 5222 Martin St. Ste 260 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel:714/258-780 Fax:714/258-78¢ © © NN Oo wn Bs W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 rescheduled over the course of the next year because Nikolic persisted in raising new defenses throughout. Nikolic then filed a separate action that was consolidated with the lead action on March 17. 2017. Following the filing of the initial Motion to Expunge Mechanics’ Lien, there was considerable law and motion work that was required to rebut Nikolic’s assertion that he was properly licensed throughout the course of the work at the Alikhanis’ home. Nikolic filed a Request for Dismissal of the Complaint on or about March 16, 2018, and released the Mechanics’ Lien at or around the same time, just prior to the hearing on the Motion to Expunge. (Hobbs Decl., 912) A prevailing party on a motion to expunge a lis pendens is entitled to recover attorney fees. The statute provides: “The court shall direct that the party prevailing on any motion under this chapter be awarded the reasonable attorney's fees and costs of making or opposing the motion unless the court finds that the other party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of attorney's fees and costs unjust.” (§ 405.38, italics added.) In the present case, it cannot be disputed that as a result of the Alikhanis’ Motion to Expunge Mechanics’ Lien, the Alikhanis’ clearly realized the objectives of the Expungement Motion: release of the Mechanics’ Lien on the eve of the hearing of the Motion to Expunge, and full dismissal of the Enforcement Action. This occurred because Nikolic, unable to successfully oppose the Expungement Motion, chose to simply dismiss the action in an effort to avoid the Expungement Motion Ruling and the Statutory Fee award. This will not be permitted by the Court. (Hobbs Decl., § 13.) III. PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS ARE JUSTIFIED Where a statute grants a general right to “reasonable” attorneys’ fees, the amount awarded is within the discretion of the court. Los Angeles v. Los Angeles-Inyo Farms Co., (1933) 134 Cal. App. 268, 274. As shown by the declaration of attorney Caitlyn M. Hobbs on behalf of the Alikhanis, and the exhibits submitted in support of this fee motion, the Alikhanis have incurred $94,184.09 for attorneys’ fees and costs related to defeating Plaintiffs repeated attempts to oppose expunging the Mechanics’ Lien. The total amount requested is broken down as a request for attorneys’ fees of $83,321.50 and costs of $10,862.59. Hobbs Decl., Exh. 4, 19 10-15.) As the Court knows, this case 56. ALIKHANIS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS PREVAILING PARTY ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANICS’ LIEN §:\Alikhani, Shahriar & Whitney! Pleadings MOTION FOR FEES PREVAILING PARTY TO EXPNGEMENT MOTION'\ALKIHANI MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS" FEES ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE. doc SALEK LAW FIR 5222 Martin St Ste 260 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel:714/258-780 Fax:714/258-78¢ © 00 NN OO wn kA W N = N O N N N N N N N N D N D N = e m e s e e e e = © uN OO Wn RA W N = O O V V ® N S N R E W N = O O required multiple court appearances, several ex parte hearings, and numerous continuances in order to permit discovery that was required by Nikolics ever changing theory on the status of his CSLB license, which ultimately resulted in the Court setting an Evidentiary Hearing on the issue of substantial compliance with the licensing statutes. (Hobbs Decl., 9 14 & 15, Exh. 4.) Plaintiff seeks an award of attorneys’ fees related bringing the Motion to Expunge, and the multiple supplemental briefings required on the issue of Nikolic’s CSLB license statue, and on the issue of substantial compliance, in the amount of $83.321.50. This amount is reasonable given the nature of the amount in controversy and the multiple court appearances and extensive briefing necessitated by the motions and related ex parte hearings. “In determining what constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee when a contract or statute provides for such an award, courts should consider the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, and the skill required and success of the attorney's efforts, his or her learning, age and experience in the particular type of work demanded, the intricacies and importance of the litigation, the labor necessity for skilled legal training and ability in trying the cause, and the time consumed.” Contractors Labor Pool, Inc. v. Westway Contractors, Inc., (1997) 53 Cal. App.4th 152, 168. “An experienced trial judge is best qualified to decide the value of an attorney's services in a given matter, and on appeal we will not reverse that decision unless it is clearly wrong.” Padilla v. McClellan. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1107. Here. Alikhanis’ counsel, well versed in construction law, was forced to litigate the matter of whether Nikolic was properly licensed at all times during the Alikhanis’ project, whether Nikolic maintained workers compensation insurance at all times during the course of the project, whether Nikolic improperly underreported his payroll to his workers’ compensation carrier to reduce his premium, whether Nikolic’s license was automatically suspended by operation of law when his employees began working during the lapse in workers’ compensation coverage, and also whether there was a further automatic suspension of Nikolic’s license when he filed for an exemption from Workers Compensation Insurance while he had employees, among other legal and factual questions that we developed and briefed during the course of the Motion to Expunge. The extensive amount of briefing and court appearances was ultimately required by Nikolic’s persistence in opposing the SIL ALIKHANIS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS PREVAILING PARTY ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANICS’ LIEN §:\Alikhani, Shahriar & Whitney Pleadings MOTION FOR FEES PREVAILING PARTY TO EXPNGEMENT MOTION\ALKIHANI MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE do c SALEK LAW FIR 5222 Martin St Ste 260 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel:714/258-780 Fax:714/258-78¢ © 0 39 Oo wn Bs W o = N N N N N N N N N D m e e e e m e e e e e s e e e s 0 J O N Wn bh W N = O V0 N N N B R A W N = O Motion to Expunge on the basis that he was fully licensed during the entire project and work for the Alikhanis. Specifically, detailed below is the work required to prevail on the motion to expunge, and to obtain dismissal of the Complaint, and release of the Mechanics’ Lien. (Hobbs Decl., 16.) e The initial motion to expunge was filed on November 28, 2016 and was set for hearing on February 21, 2017. Since that date, the parties have been litigating this matter. At the hearing on the initial motion, the Court observed that Nikolic had filed his Enforcement Action on January 17, 2017, and requested that the Alikhanis” refile their motion to expunge in the “enforcement action.” (Hobbs Decl., § 16.) e The Court ordered the Alikhanis to file their motion to expunge in the enforcement action on an Ex Parte basis to expedite the hearing, since at the time the motion to expunge was filed, it was properly before the Court. The Alikhanis filed their Ex Parte Application at the soonest opportunity on March 6, 2017, and the Ex Parte was scheduled for March 9, 2017. The matter was then set for regular hearing on March 28, 2017 by the Court. (Hobbs Decl., 916.) e The Court heard the motion, however, Nikolic requested the opportunity to provide further briefing and evidence regarding his licensure status. Accordingly, on April 11, 2017, Nikolic filed a Supplemental Declaration allegedly setting forth that he was licensed during the term of the work at the Alikhanis. It was discovered by the Alikhanis that the Certified License History provided by Nikolic was not complete, and required further briefing and response by the Alikhanis in the form of a Sur Reply. Accordingly, due to Nikolic’s failure be forthcoming regarding his licensing status, the Alikhanis were required to file a Motion to Expunge, an Ex Parte Application for a Motion to Expunge and a Sur Reply, and attend hearings regarding each. (Hobbs Decl., 16.) e Once the Alikhanis proved that Nikolic was not in fact licensed for the entire period, Nikolic concede that fact, and for the first time, argued the substantial compliance defense in briefing to the Court in May 2017. Because Nikolic raised the issue of Substantial Compliance with the Licensing Statutes, at that point the Court was forced to request -8- ALIKHANIS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS PREVAILING PARTY ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANICS’ LIEN §:\Alikhani, Shahriar & Whitney Pleadings MOTION FOR FEES PREVAILING PARTY TO EXPNGEMENT MOTION'ALKIHANI MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS! FEES ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE. doc SALEK LAW FIR 5222 Martin St Ste 260 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel:714/258-780¢ Fax:714/258-78¢ © 0 uN Oh Wn As W N K N N N N N O N O R O N e s E e e p b e d e t ® uN O O Un BA W N = O O V V ® N O WN B A W N D = OO Supplemental Briefing on the issue of substantial compliance in an Order dated May 16, 2017. The Alikhanis then submitted that briefing. Ultimately, there were several continuances of the hearing date due to administrative matters of the Court. (Hobbs Decl.. § 16.) The Alikhanis then filed an Ex Parte Application to request the court set an Evidentiary Hearing on the matter of Substantial Compliance. (Hobbs Decl., 16.) Ultimately, the Court did set the matter for Evidentiary Hearing, which then required the Alikhanis to conduct significant discovery to obtain the evidence required to rebut Nikolic’s substantial compliance defense. Critically, the Alikhanis were forced to obtain documents regarding licensure from the CSLB itself, and to obtain the deposition of the licensing manager of the CSLB. This process was extremely time-consuming due to the procedures of the CSLB and the extensive meet and confer required to properly tailor the subpoena and categories of testimony. (Hobbs Decl.. § 16.) In addition, discovery was required regarding issues that arose with respect to the number of employees Nikolic employed and how they were paid, workers’ compensation coverage, Nikolic’s eligibility for exemption from workers’ compensation, and discovery into the payroll and accounting matters of the company. Obtaining this information required the deposition of Daniel Nikolic, Kristina Nikolic (person Daniel N. stated was in charge of accounting), and former employees of Nikolic Construction — Kevin Rylander, Caesar Guzman, and others whom the Alikhanis went to great length to serve with subpoenas, but were unable to do so. Even with respect to those former employees that were served, they evaded service of process requiring extreme efforts to serve them, and there is significant evidence that former employees were dissuaded from appearing at deposition by Nikolic and his counsel. This discovery was extremely time-consuming to obtain, however, it resulted in critical testimony that all employees were paid under the table by Nikolic and did not report their income at all. This was a critical piece in getting the affirmative claims dismissed because, under those circumstances, Nikolic’s license was automatically suspended by operation of law as argued in Alikhanis former briefs. (Hobbs Decl., 16.) =9= ALIKHANIS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS PREVAILING PARTY ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANICS’ LIEN S:\Alikhani, Shahriar & Whitney Pleadings MOTION FOR FEES PREVAILING PARTY TO EXPNGEMENT MOTION'\ALKIHANI MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE. doc SALEK LAW FIR 5222 Martin St, Ste 260 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel:714/258-780¢ Fax:714/258-78¢ © © NN OO wn bs W N = N N N N N N N N N N m e e e e m e e e e e e e e 0 0 " = ~ O y n t B T W R e m H D C N E L 0 0 t N C O N , T O d B W O N em OO e There was also significant additional written discovery that was required, as well as a discovery motion to compel that was necessitated by Nikolic’s refusal to provide unredacted payroll checks and records as required by the Alikhanis to obtain the information necessary. The Court required Nikolic to produce the payroll checks of the employees of the company without redaction. (Hobbs Decl., § 16.) e The lias then had to seek ex parte relief to have the Evidentiary Hearing continued on several occasions because the discovery delays by Nikolic made it impossible to fully prepare for the hearing. (Hobbs Decl., § 16.) e The Alikhanis also brought a motion to exclude Scott Parks from representing Nikolic on the Motion to Expunge on the basis that he is not counsel of record in the affirmative claim action. (Hobbs Decl., § 16.) e Finally, the Alikhanis were required to spend extensive time preparing for the Evidentiary Hearing, which ultimately became moot because Nikolic dismissed his claims and released the mechanis” lien on the eve of the hearing. (Hobbs Decl.. § 16.) e With no options left, Nikolic simply dismissed his claims and released the mechanics’ lien, leaving the Alikhanis with significant attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of Nikolic’s stall tactics and evasive techniques. (Hobbs Decl., 9 16.) This summary is, of course, a very general overview of the work required to prevail on the motion, and represents the costs and fees of sixteen (16) months of work on this portion of the litigation alone. The itemized billing detail for the entire amount of fees and costs requested in attached to the Declaration of Caitlyn M. Hobbs as Exhibit 4. 1H 1 1 S10 ALIKHANIS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS PREVAILING PARTY ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANICS’ LIEN $:\Alikhani, Shahriar & Whitney Pleadings MOTION FOR FEES PREVAILING PARTY TO EXPNGEMENT MOTION\ALKIHANI MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE.doc SALEK LAW FIR 5222 Martin St., Ste 260 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel:714/258-780¢ Fax.714/258-78¢ © 0 NN Oo wn BH W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IV. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing reasons, the Alikhanis respectfully requests that the Court grant the instant Motion For Attorneys' Fees and Costs against Nikolic in the aggregate amount of $94,184.09, which represents a request for attorneys’ fees of $83,321.50 and costs of $10,862.59, as supported by the attached declaration at Exhibit 4 of the Declaration of Caitlyn M. Hobbs. DATED: April 26, 2018 SALEK LAW FIRM M. HOBBS Attorneys for Defendants SHAHRIAR ALIKHANI, an individual, and WHITNEY S. ALIKHANI, an individual = ALIKHANIS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS PREVAILING PARTY ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANICS’ LIEN $:\Alikhani, Shahriar & Whitney Pleadings' MOTION FOR FEES PREVAILING PARTY TO EXPNGEMENT MOTION\ALKIHANI MOTION FOR ATT ORNEYS' FEES ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE.doc SALEK LAW FIR 5222 Martin St., Ste 260 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel: 714/258-7800 Fax:714/258-78¢