Wells v. Ciotti
Filed 2/3/06 Wells v. Ciotti CA2/2



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED


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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977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 CALIFORNIA






SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT






DIVISION TWO






WILLIAM G. WELLS et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

RICHARD CIOTTI et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.
B179092

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. YC041542)


APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Morris Jones, Judge. Affirmed.

W. G. Wells, in pro. per., for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Kerendian & Associates, Shab Kerendian for Defendants and Respondents.

___________________________________________________

This appeal is taken from a postjudgment award of attorney fees and costs. The parties' lease agreement provides for an award of fees to the prevailing party in disputes arising from the lease. We reject the contentions made on appeal that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award fees, or that the fees awarded were unreasonable.

FACTS

Appellants William Wells and Valuation Systems (collectively, Wells) are the owners of commercial real estate in Torrance. Respondent Richard Ciotti is the tenant who leased Wells's property from 1998 to 2004. In 2001, Wells brought unlawful detainer and breach of contract actions against Ciotti. The dispute was tried by the court in September 2002. After Wells presented his case at trial, the court granted Ciotti's motion for judgment.

On September 30, 2002, Ciotti filed a motion seeking to recover his attorney fees and costs, as the prevailing party under the terms of the lease agreement. Wells moved to strike the request for attorney fees and costs on the grounds of prematurity, inasmuch as judgment had not been entered. Wells also objected to the reasonableness of the requested fees.

The trial court gave judgment to Ciotti on November 12, 2002. Wells pursued motions to vacate the judgment and for a new trial, complaining that he was unable to hear properly during the trial, despite his use of hearing aids and an assisted listening device provided to him by the court. In a January 8, 2003, order, the court refused to vacate the judgment or set a new trial, finding that Wells's protestations lacked credibility.

On January 21, 2003, Ciotti renewed his request for attorney fees and costs. He sought to recover fees of $54,425, which included the work involved in opposing Wells's postjudgment motions. On the very same day, Wells filed a statement seeking to disqualify the trial judge. The judge tardily responded by striking the disqualification statement. The court then granted Ciotti's request for fees and costs, despite Wells's objection that the judge was disqualified from making further rulings.

Wells appealed from the order awarding attorney fees. We granted his appeal and vacated the award, solely because the trial judge was disqualified by operation of law. (Wells v. Ciotti (Apr. 5, 2004, B166077 [nonpub. opn.].) Our disposition directed the supervising judge of the superior court â€