MotionCal. Super. - 3rd Dist.July 31, 2017iS} O o P A N D a Kk WH 10 3 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2a 23 a4 25 26 27 28 am ROSNER, BARRY & BABBITT, LLP FILE D> Christopher P. Barry, SBN a ee Lacee B. Smith, SBN'284168 SOP ER SOUNTY OF PLACER NA 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92131 DEC 05 2018 Esephone: ee ade ins AKE CHATTERS acsimile: (858) 348-1150 EXPQUT hawk@rbblawgroup.com By: Gi Waggoner Deputy lacee@rbblawgroup.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER ANDREA FILIMON and EMANUELA Case No. SCV0039808 FILIMON, a Plaintiffs’ Amended Notice of Motion and Plaintiffs, Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs v. Date: January 17, 2019 ROSEVILLE TOYOTA, a California Time: 8:30 a.m. Corporation; TOYOTA FINANCIAL Judge: Hon. Charles Wachob SERVICES, a California Corporation; Dept: 42 RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation; and DOES 1 through 75, Complaint Filed: July 31, 2017 inclusive, Trial Date: vacated Defendants. FILED BY FAX TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 17, 2019, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 42 of the Placer County Superior Court, located at 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, California, Plaintiffs hereby move this Court for an Order awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing party on all causes of action in this litigation. This motion is made pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement executed by all parties, which deemed Plaintiffs the prevailing party on all causes of action asserted in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Plaintiffs’ Complaint included a claim under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, which entitles prevailing plaintiffs to recover their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. (See Civil Code § 1780(e).) 1 Plaintiffs’ Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs No o O C N D o H R WH 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 an 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs seek an order awarding them $34,455.00 in attorney’s fees and $1,459.40 in costs against Defendants Roseville Toyota, Toyota Financial Services, and RLI Insurance Company, for a total award of $35,914.40. This motion is based on this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum, the Declaration of Christopher P. Barry, the Compendium of Exhibits, the pleadings and papers on file in this action, and upon such further argument as may be requested by the court at the hearing of this motion. DATED: November 30, 2018 ROSNER, BARRY & BABBITT, LLP ny, Aout Sr CHRISTOPHER P. BARRY LACEE B. SMITH Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2 Plaintiffs’ Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs to O o O N D H KR WH 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 e4 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Filimon, Andrea & Emanuela v, Roseville Toyota, et al. Placer County Superior Case No.: SCV0039808 I am employed in the County of San Diego, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is: 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, First Floor, San Diego, California 92131. On November 30, 2018, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS on the interested parties in this action at San Diego, California, addressed as follows: John A, Britton, Esq. Abraham J, Colman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BRITTON, INC, | Raagini Shah, Esq. 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 400 REED SMITH LLP Roseville, California 95661 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 Tel: (916) 781-2050 / Fax: (916) 782-7560 Los Angeles, California 90071 Jbritton@jbrittonlaw.com Tel: (213) 457-8000 Fax: (213) 457-8080 acolman@reedsmith.com Attorney for Defendant rshah@reedsmith.com JOHN L. SULLIVAN INVESTMENTS, INC. dba ROSEVILE TOYOTA AND RLI Attorneys for Defendant INSURANCE COMPANY TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION [X] BY U.S. MAIL: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, on the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, at San Diego, California. I 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. [X] STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on November 30, 2018 at San Diego, California. reat Nadine Hicks - 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
