Case Number: BS118854    Hearing Date: August 08, 2014    Dept: 58

JUDGE ROLF M. TREU
DEPARTMENT 58
________________________________________
Hearing Date: Friday, August 8, 2014
Calendar No: 7
Case Name: Lifeset, et al. v. Seibert
Case No.: BS118854
Motion: Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs
Moving Party: Plaintiffs Roger Lifeset; Roger Lifeset, Inc. Employee Retirement Trust; Roger A. Lifeset, Trustee; and Diane Lifeset
Opposing Party: No opposition filed
Notice: Insufficient proof of service

Tentative Ruling: Motion for attorney fees and costs is denied without prejudice. Alternatively, the Court will permit Plaintiffs an opportunity to address the propriety of service at the hearing or by later filings.
________________________________________

On 1/30/09, Plaintiffs Roger Lifeset; Roger Lifeset, Inc. Employee Retirement Trust; Roger A. Lifeset, Trustee; and Diane Lifeset filed this action against Defendant Michael J. Seibert to enter a confession judgment. On 5/29/09, a confession judgment was entered against Defendant.

Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs –
Plaintiffs seek postjudgment attorney fees and costs incurred in enforcing the judgment pursuant to CCP § 685.040. Plaintiffs submit that they have incurred attorney fees of $6,850 (Iezza Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 1 (which includes 5 hours spent on this motion at the hourly rate of $200)) and costs of $2,447.11 (id. ¶ 6, Ex. 2). No opposition was filed. Plaintiffs submit competent evidence supporting the claimed attorney’s fees and costs.

However, the Court notes an issue as to service of the motion. The proof of service indicates that this motion was served by mail on Defendant at 1677 Calle Rochelle, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360. Plaintiffs fail to explain how this address is proper. While the Court notes that this is an address for which Plaintiffs have served Defendant (see Memo of Costs filed 6/3/14), the Court notes that all other notices have been sent to Defendant at 363 S. Ridge Dr., Oak Park, CA 91377 (see also Defendant’s declaration filed 12/5/13). Therefore, the Court is inclined to either deny the motion without prejudice or permit Plaintiffs an opportunity to address the propriety of service at the hearing or by later filings.