Sierra Lumber & Fence Co., Inc. vs Aldofina Gonzalez

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: July 23, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS 9:00 A.M. LINE 1 22CV392899 Sierra Lumber & Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs Fence Co., Inc. vs Scroll down to Line 1 for Tentative Ruling. Aldofina Gonzalez LINE 2 24CV452583 Christopher Motion for Summary Judgment/ Adjudication Newman vs City of OFF CALENDAR. On July 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a request to dismiss San Jose California Defendant City of San Jose only. Defendant City filed this motion on et al April 30, 2026. No opposition was filed. The motion is rendered moot.

LINE 3 25CV458778 Community Demurrer Michelle Harper vs Scroll down to Line 3 for Tentative Ruling. The Salvation Army LINE 4 25CV460160 Paul Beckett et al vs Petition to Compel Arbitration Ford Motor Scroll down to Line 4 for Tentative Ruling. Company et al LINE 5 25CV464797 Rena Roman vs Petition to Compel Arbitration Hyundai Motor OFF CALENDAR. On July 17, 2026, the moving party/Hyundai Motor America, a America filed a notice to withdraw the motion as the issue is MOOT. California Corp. et al LINE 6 25CV468980 Staci Santoro vs Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Ford Motor Co. et al Scroll down to Line 6 for Tentative Ruling.

LINE 7 25CV471472 American Express Motion to Enter Judgment National Bank vs Scroll down to Line 7 for Tentative Ruling. Rizalino Leon LINE 8 25CV473890 Alpha Omega House Demurrer Corp. vs The Board Scroll down to Line 8 for Tentative Ruling. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University

9:00 A.M. Calendar Line # 1 Case Name Sierra Lumber & Fence Co., Inc. vs Aldofina Gonzalez Case No. 22CV392899 Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs

I. BACKGROUND This case stems from a January 3, 2022, Complaint involving a breach of contract, general, and foreclosure of mechanic’s liens. (Complaint). Plaintiff Sierra Lumber & Fence Company, Inc. (“Sierra”) sought an entry of default judgment against Defendant Aldofina Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) on March 4, 2022. The Honorable Sunil Kulkarni entered default judgment on July 19, 2023 for Plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $10,453.84, which comprised of $6,791.00 in underlying damages; $1,207.47 in attorney’s fees; $1,105.33 in costs; and $1,350.05 in pre-judgment interest set at 18% per contract. (Default Judgment).

On January 19, 2024, notice was filed that Pacific State Industries, Inc. (“Pacific”) was assigned the judgment. (Notice of Assignment of Judgment). On March 22, 2024, the Honorable Socrates Manoukian authorized an enforcement of judgment and awarded post-judgment attorney’s fees as well as $1,000.00 to plaintiff’s counsel.

Memorandum of costs were filed regarding attorney’s fees and costs on March 25, 2024 and an amended memorandum of costs on April 12, 2024 seeking $13,600.86 comprised of $10,463.89 in attorney’s fees and $2,390.51 in costs for filing fee, postage, clerk’s fee, recorder fees, copies, and process servers. Subsequent motions for an order turning over and authorizing the levy were filed and granted. On September 9, 2024, the Honorable Shella Deen authorized a notice of entry of judgment and ordered the debtor to serve code-compliant post-judgment interrogatories within fifteen days.

Pacific then filed a motion for sanctions for the debtor’s failure to comply with the court’s September 9, 2024 order, and on December 12, 2024, Judge Deen authorized sanctions in the amount of $2,035.00 against the debtor. On November 6, 2025, Judge Deen issued a $1,500.00 bench warrant for the defendant’s failure to appear for an order for examination (“OEX”). The warrant was issued on January 26, 2026. On June 4, 2026, Defendant appeared and was served with another OEX and was ordered to appear at the next court date.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Sierra Lumber & Fence Company, Inc.’s (“Sierra”) motion for award of attorney’s fees and costs arising from enforcing a judgment. On November 12, 2025, Plaintiff Sierra filed this motion and the motion was accompanied by a proof of service indicating mail and electronic service to Defendant Aldofina Gonzalez on that same day. On June 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a second supplemental declaration in support of the amended motion for updated attorney’s fees and cost, which was filed on June 16, 2026. The Declaration and motion was accompanied by a proofs of services indicating electronic mail service on the respective filing dates.

The motion is unopposed. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) opposition papers were due on July 10, 2026. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. California Rule of Court Rule 8.54c. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rule of Court Rule 8.54(c)). Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the defendant has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489).

The Court has carefully reviewed the following: moving papers, including: notice of motion for attorney’s fees and costs (totaling 3 pages); memorandum of points and authorities in support of the plaintiff’s motion (totaling 6 pages); Declaration of Joseph P. Thompson in support of plaintiff’s motion and attached Exhibits JJ-TT (totaling 72 pages); Supplemental Declaration of Thompson in support of the motion and attached Exhibits UU-WW (totaling 42 pages); Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for attorney’s fees and costs (totaling 5 pages); Declaration of Thompson’s Second Supplemental in support of plaintiff’s motion and attached Exhibit XX (totaling 12 pages); proof of services (totaling 2 pages); and the pleadings.

II. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040, attorney's fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are included as costs collectible under this title if the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney's fees to the judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 1033.5.

Code of Civil Procedure section 685.080 provides the procedural requirements of a motion for post-judgment fees as follows:

(a) The judgment creditor may claim costs authorized by Section 685.040 by noticed motion. The motion shall be made before the judgment is satisfied in full, but not later than two years after the costs have been incurred. The costs claimed under this section may include, but are not limited to, costs that may be claimed under Section 685.070 and costs incurred but not approved by the court or referee in a proceeding under Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 708.010) of Division 2.

(b) The notice of motion shall describe the costs claimed, shall state their amount, and shall be supported by an affidavit of a person who has knowledge of the facts stating that to the person’s best knowledge and belief the costs are correct, are reasonable and necessary, and have not been satisfied. The notice of motion shall be served on the judgment debtor. Service shall be made personally or by mail.

(c) The court shall make an order allowing or disallowing the costs to the extent justified under the circumstances of the case.

Plaintiff seeks to recover both fees and sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 708.170, which the Court must issue absent “good cause” for failure to appear. Under section 708.710:

(a) If an order requiring a person to appear for an examination under subdivision (e) of Section 708.110 was served by a sheriff, marshal, a person specially appointed by the court in the order, or a registered process server, and the person fails to appear: (1) The court may do either of the following: (A) Pursuant to a warrant, have the person brought before the court to answer for the failure to appear and may punish the person for contempt. (B) Issue a warrant for the arrest of the person who failed to appear as required by the court order, pursuant to Section 1993. (2) If the person's failure to appear is without good cause, the judgment creditor shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the examination proceeding. Attorney's fees awarded against the judgment debtor shall be added to and become part of the principal amount of the judgment.

If the underlying judgment includes an award of contract attorney fees, attorney fees incurred by the judgment creditor in enforcing the judgment are also recoverable as costs. (Code of Civ. Proc., §685.040; Globalist Internet Technologies, Inc. v. Reda (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1274).

III. ANALYSIS Here, the underlying judgment was issued pursuant to a default judgment authorized by Judge Kulkarni on July 19, 2023 in the amount of $10,453.84. Subsequently, motions to enforce the judgment and sanctions were ordered by Judge Manoukian on March 22, 2024 and sanctions were awarded in the amount of $1,000.00. (Declaration of Thompson, at p. 2). and Judge Deen on September 9, 2024 and on June 2, 2025, Judge Deen awarded sanctions in the amount of $2,035.00. (Id.).Plaintiff asserts that the defendant has failed to comply with court orders and has failed to make any payments, and thus filed the noticed motion. (Id.).

Plaintiff is only entitled to collect the “reasonable and necessary costs” of enforcing a judgment, including attorneys’ fees. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 685.040). Plaintiff asserts that its judgment included an attorney’s fees clause as did the underlying judgment. (Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities, p.2). It submits a declaration from its counsel and requests $23,672.35 in attorney’s fees, comprised of 59.93 total hours at the hourly rate of $395.00. It argues that since March 12, 2024 it had to engage in locating the defendant and prepare and file this motion to enforce that justify the additional imposition of fees. The last memorandum of costs was submitted on June 4, 2025 at the rate of $2,390.51.

Plaintiff seeks to recover both fees and costs in the amount of $23,672.35 (Amended Motion, p. 2) under Code of Civil Procedure section 708.170, for the defendant/debtor’s failure to obey the following Court orders from March 12, 2024 to November 11, 2025: “(1) Order Granting Motion to Compel Debtors to Answer Post-Judgment Interrogatories, etc., ("Order to Compel'") and (2) Order Granting Motion for Award of Sanctions Against Judgment Debtors ("Sanctions Order"), filed on 6-2-2025, nor has Debtor ALDOFINA GONZALEZ obeyed the Court's Order for Appearance and Examination—Enforcement of Judgment ("OEX"), filed on 8-20-2025, copies of all three of which were personally served on ALDOFINA GONZALEZ on 8-28-2025.” (Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities, p.2)(emphasis removed).

Plaintiff asserts that the defendant’s failure to comply with “. . . Court’s orders reveal their bad faith litigation tactics, which cause Pacific States cost of litigation to increase unnecessarily. . .” as well as caused unnecessary consumption of time and judicial resources. (Id.) Plaintiff emphasizes that section 708.170(a) states that upon finding an examinee did not have good cause for failing to appear, the court must award judgment creditor’s reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in the examination proceedings. (Id., at p. 4).

The plaintiff sets forth efforts to meet-and-confer with the defendant in attempt to resolve the matter to no avail. (Declaration of Thompson, at p.3; Exhibits JJ, KK, LL, MM, NN, OO, PP, QQ, and RR).

No opposition was filed. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. California Rule of Court Rule 8.54c. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (Rule of Court, Rule 8.54(c)). Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the defendant has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489).

The court finds that the Plaintiff incurred the fees and their efforts were reasonable and necessary for enforcing the judgment. The Court finds the hourly rate of $395.00 as requested by the plaintiff reasonable. Upon review of the 59.93 hours, the court reduces 12.9 hours from March 12, 2024 through June 9, 2026 (Exhibits SS and TT) and that it sees a duplicative or administrative. Thus, the Court GRANTS attorney’s fees in the amount of $21,736.85 for 47.03 hours at the hourly rate of $395.00.

IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, and the motion being unopposed, the Court GRANTS attorney’s fees in the amount of $18,576.8585 for 47.03 hours at the hourly rate of $395.00.

The Court will prepare the formal Order.

// // //

6