Shayan Rostam v. Triller Hold Co LLC, et al.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 510) August 26, 2026 DEPARTMENT 510 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Please notify Department 510 via email at [email protected] and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Hold Co LLC, et al. Plaintiff Shayan Rostam's Request for Default Judgment and Motion for Attorney Fees Plaintiff Shayan Rostam requests court judgment by default against Defendant Triller Hold Co LLC for $1,971,757.63. Plaintiff also filed a motion for attorney fees to justify his attorney fee request of $603,284.85 made as part of the application for default judgment.

As detailed in a prior Court order, Plaintiff's request for default judgment meets all requirements except its request for excessive attorney fees. Attorney fees for a default judgment are generally limited to a specified schedule based on the amount of damages. (Local Rules 3.207(a), 3.214(a).) A plaintiff may recover "a fee greater than listed in the [default] schedule because of extraordinary services." (Local Rule 3.214(d).) The local rule does not provide a definition of what constitutes "extraordinary services." However, caselaw interpreting "extraordinary services" warranting higher fees in probate actions reveals that extraordinary services are those that are "remarkable, uncommon, or rare." (In re Buchman's Estate (1955) 138 Cal.App.2d 228, 235 [interpreting former Prob. Code, Sec. 902].)

Plaintiff argues that counsel provided extraordinary services by litigating two motions and participating in arbitration proceedings for one year. However, these are not extraordinary services because they are not outside what would normally be performed in an ordinary proceeding. Even assuming these tasks did constitute "extraordinary services" for purposes of Local Rule 3.214(d), Plaintiff does not provide the requisite itemized statement of the tasks performed and fees incurred. (See Local Rule 3.214(d) ["An application for a fee greater than listed in the foregoing schedule because of extraordinary services must include an itemized statement of the services rendered or to be rendered."].)

Instead, Plaintiff's counsel admits that "Because the representation was handled on a contingency basis, the firm did not bill Plaintiff by the hour for this matter. The hours expended cannot now be reconstructed or estimated with sufficient reliability to present an accurate hourly total." (Lavinski Decl., P. 3.) Counsel provides no evidence showing an estimation of the work performed in this case since its initiation in 2023. Without this, the Court could not evaluate the services rendered and their reasonableness. There is also inadequate evidence to determine the reasonableness of fees incurred under CCP Sec. 1281.98(c).

Finally, as previously noted by the Court in an April 9, 2026 minute order, even if Plaintiff had established extraordinary services, the fees would be deducted from, not added to, the gross recovery, for the fees were based on a contingency fee arrangement. Despite this ruling, and the Court's prior denials of fees based on the lack of evidence of extraordinary services, Plaintiff once again seeks fees on an additive basis. Plaintiff cannot have it both ways.

Disposition

Plaintiff Shayan Rostam's request for default judgment is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff Shayan Rostam's motion for attorney fees is denied.

Case Number: 24STCV25841 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 510 No. 9 - Ivan Estrada v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. Plaintiff Ivan Estrada's Motion to Compel Compliance with Court's June 1, 2026 Order and Defendant's Court-Ordered Discovery Responses Plaintiff Ivan Estrada moves to compel Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. to comply with this Court's June 1, 2026 order, which ordered Defendant to provide further verified responses to RFP request nos. 75, 78 and 82. Plaintiff also moves to compel Defendant to comply with its discovery responses.

First, Plaintiff argues that Defendant provided unverified responses to request nos. 75, 78, and 82 in violation of the Court's prior order. However, on August 12, 2026, Defendant served the required verifications, which it inadvertently omitted from its prior responses. (Payne Decl., P. 15.) The Court finds this verification sufficient. Plaintiff's motion to compel compliance with the Court's order to provide verified responses is moot.

Second, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's unverified responses included statements of compliance; however, Defendant failed to produce any documents. The Court notes an inconsistency between these two requests for relief: If Defendant's unverified responses were tantamount to no responses at all, as Plaintiff argues, compelling Defendant to comply with them would be meaningless. In any event, since this motion was filed, Defendant produced responsive documents to request nos. 75 and 78, and provided a further supplemental response to no. 82, indicating inability to comply with the request. This further supplementation moots Plaintiff's request for relief.

In reply, Plaintiff takes issue with the content of Defendant's amended responses to request nos. 78 and 82. The Court cannot consider the sufficiency of Defendant's amended discovery responses in this motion. Plaintiff brought this as a motion to compel compliance with Defendant's then-existing discovery responses under CCP Sec. 2031.320. Any disputes regarding the sufficiency of the amended responses must be raised through a motion to compel further responses under CCP Sec. 2031.310. This motion must contain the requisite separate statement. Plaintiff's request for sanctions in the amount of $500 each day Defendant does not comply with its responses after a new ten-day compliance period is denied as moot.

Disposition

Plaintiff Ivan Estrada's motion to compel compliance with court's June 1, 2026 order and Defendant's court-ordered discovery responses is denied.