Motion for Attorney Fees

Digitech’s Motion for Attorney Fees in Contract Action (“Motion”) is DENIED for lack of produced evidence supporting the requested attorney fees and costs.  Digitech has leave to file an amended Motion, with proper supporting evidence, within 10 days, set for a regularly noticed hearing.

Digitech is to re-file its Motion and include evidence of 1) actual billed hours for each attorney and each item that was billed Digitech for all of the work allegedly performed; 2) the contracted attorney fee rate; 3) to identify the what the $1,126.84 in fees are for and why they were not included in the Memorandum of Costs; and 4) a breakdown of the “anticipated” fees and costs.  This will aid the Court it determining the reasonableness of the requested amounts.  The re-filed Motion is to be regularly filed and noticed under the requirements of C.C.P. § 1005.

Motion for Leave to Amend

Digitech’s Motion To Amend the Cross-Complaint is DENIED.

The Court granted a new trial for the issue of the damage award to Digitech Business Solutions, Inc. for emotional distress.  Minute Order, 04/20/18.  The Court did not grant trial as to the cause of action of conversion, or any other causes of action in either the complaint of cross-complaint.  Id.

As the new trial was a damages only trial as to Digitech’s emotional distress damages, Hamzee does not have standing to be added as a plaintiff to the question of Digitech’s emotional distress damages.  Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc.(2014) 228 Cal. App. 4th 294.

Further, it appears that Hamzee is now being added for an inappropriate motive, namely that during the original trial he hid behind the corporate entity to protect his personal assets, yet once it was clear that Digitech was the prevailing party and liability on the part of Hamzee would be little to none, only then did Hamzee decide to attempt to step around the corporate entity in order to obtain an additional monetary award.  Id.  This was despite knowing of Hamzee’s emotional distress claims 1.5 years prior to trial, yet never seeking for Hamzee to become a plaintiff throughout that time frame.

Additionally, “an amended pleading that adds a new plaintiff will not relate back to the filing of the original complaint if the new party seeks to enforce an independent right or to impose greater liability against the defendants.”  San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Superior Court (2007) 146 Cal. App. 4th 1545, 1550, 725, as modified on denial of reh’g (Feb. 21, 2007).  The emotional distress damages to Digitech and Hamzee are independent rights to each individual entity, with their own pecuniary damages.  Hamzee’s claim of emotional distress would also impose greater liability against Wholesome Choice that Digitech’s claim alone.  As such,  Hamzee’s claim cannot relate back to the filing of the Complaint/Cross-Complaint, and is therefore time barred by the two-year statute of limitations for emotional distress.  Id.; C.C.P. § 335.1.

Moving Party to give notice.