This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/10/2020 at 10:52:00 (UTC).

ATKINSON-BAKER, INC., VS LENNEA N WILLIS

Case Summary

On 07/13/2018 ATKINSON-BAKER, INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against LENNEA N WILLIS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9439

  • Filing Date:

    07/13/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ATKINSON-BAKER INC.

Defendant

WILLIS LENNEA N DBA LAW OFFICES OF LENNEA N. WILLIS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BATES JAMES WILLIAM

Defendant Attorney

WILLIS LINNEA NICOLE

 

Court Documents

Judgment - Judgment Following Entry Of Order Granting Motion For Summary Judgment Or, Alternatively Summary Adjudication Of Issues On Complaint

1/31/2020: Judgment - Judgment Following Entry Of Order Granting Motion For Summary Judgment Or, Alternatively Summary Adjudication Of Issues On Complaint

Notice (name extension) - Notice Of Entry Of Order Granting Motion For Summary Judgment

3/24/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Of Entry Of Order Granting Motion For Summary Judgment

Memorandum of Costs (Summary) - Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

3/24/2020: Memorandum of Costs (Summary) - Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Notice (name extension) - Notice Of Entry Of Judgment

3/24/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Of Entry Of Judgment

Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

4/8/2020: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

9/13/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice (name extension) - Notice Of Ruling On Motion For Summary Judgment Or, Alternatively Summary Adjudication Of Issues On Complaint

11/1/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice Of Ruling On Motion For Summary Judgment Or, Alternatively Summary Adjudication Of Issues On Complaint

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

6/27/2019: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

6/27/2019: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/4/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

10/10/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

10/17/2018: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

8/2/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Complaint

7/13/2018: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

7/13/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/08/2020
  • DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Issued by: Atkinson-Baker, INC., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketNotice Of Entry Of Judgment; Filed by: Atkinson-Baker, INC., (Plaintiff); As to: Lennea N Willis (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketNotice Of Entry Of Order Granting Motion For Summary Judgment; Filed by: Atkinson-Baker, INC., (Plaintiff); As to: Lennea N Willis (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by: Atkinson-Baker, INC., (Plaintiff); As to: Lennea N Willis (Defendant); Total Costs: 948.20

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment Following Entry Of Order Granting Motion For Summary Judgment Or, Alternatively Summary Adjudication Of Issues On Complaint: Filed By: Atkinson-Baker, INC., (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 01/31/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketJudgment Following Entry Of Order Granting Motion For Summary Judgment Or, Alternatively Summary Adjudication Of Issues On Complaint; Filed by: Atkinson-Baker, INC., (Plaintiff); As to: Lennea N Willis (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketCase reassigned to Spring Street Courthouse in Department 25 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Transfer for Reassignment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketOrder Granting Motion For Summary Judgment Or, Alternatively Summary Adjudication Of Issues On Complaint; Signed and Filed by: Atkinson-Baker, INC., (Plaintiff); As to: Lennea N Willis (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Order Granting Motion For Summary Judgment Or, Alternatively Summary Adjudication Of Issues On Complaint: Filed By: Atkinson-Baker, INC., (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 01/31/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2019
  • DocketNotice Of Ruling On Motion For Summary Judgment Or, Alternatively Summary Adjudication Of Issues On Complaint; Filed by: Atkinson-Baker, INC., (Plaintiff); As to: Lennea N Willis (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
19 More Docket Entries
  • 10/10/2018
  • Docket; Default not entered as to Lennea N Willis; On the Complaint filed by Atkinson-Baker, INC., on 07/13/2018

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Atkinson-Baker, INC., (Plaintiff); As to: Lennea N Willis (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 08/01/2018; Service Cost: 114.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Atkinson-Baker, INC., (Plaintiff); As to: Lennea N Willis (Defendant); After Substituted Service of Summons & Complaint ?: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Atkinson-Baker, INC., (Plaintiff); As to: Lennea N Willis (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Atkinson-Baker, INC., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/16/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC09439    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Atkinson-Baker, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is GRANTED.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Grant Plaintiff summary judgment on the grounds that there are no disputed facts as to Defendant’s liability for failing to pay for court reporter services.

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 21, 2019.

ANALYSIS:

On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff Atkinson-Baker, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of oral contract, open book account and services performed against Defendant Linnea N. Willis dba Law Offices of Linnea N. Willis (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication on June 27, 2019, at which time it also dismissed the first cause of action for breach of contract.

The Motion initially came for hearing on September 12, 2019 at which time it was continued to October 24, 2019 to allow Defendant to file papers that set forth admissible evidence of the existence of a triable issue of material fact. To date, however, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153.) The moving party must make an affirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the opposing party files an opposition. (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733.)

When a Defendant or Cross-Defendant seeks summary judgment, he/she must show either (1) that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established; or (2) that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) When a Plaintiff or Cross-Complainant seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) The moving party’s “affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ‘ultimate’ facts” and be strictly construed. (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519; Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639.)

The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832.) Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p).) The opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations to show a triable issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial in nature and rise beyond mere speculation. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151.) As to any alternative request for summary adjudication of issues, such alternative relief must be clearly set forth in the Notice of Motion and the general burden shifting rules apply but the issues upon which summary adjudication may be sought are limited by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)

Discussion

Plaintiff presents evidence that from September 26, 2017 through January 4, 2018, Plaintiff provided court reporting and transcription services to Defendant in the action T&S Enterprise v. Mancheno, Contra Costa County Superior Court, Case No. C13-00491 (“T&S v. Mancheno”). (Motion, Separate Statement Fact No. 3; Medina Decl., ¶4.) Defendant represented Mancheno in that action and asked Plaintiff to provide a certified copy of his deposition transcripts. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact Nos. 4-5; Medina Decl., ¶¶5-6.) The cost for the transcripts was $1,012.11, but was never paid by Defendant. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact Nos. 5-6; Medina Decl., ¶¶6-7.) Plaintiff also provided Defendant with court reporting services at the trial in T&S v. Mancheno from October 4, 2017 through October 17, 2017. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact No. 7; Medina Decl., ¶8 and Exh. 1.) On June 1, 2018, the court in T&S v. Mancheno ordered Mancheno and/or Defendant to pay Plaintiff “one-half of the unpaid costs of the reporting fee for the Trial roughs and real-time.” (Motion, Separate Statement Fact No. 8; Medina Decl., ¶9 and Exh. 2.) Pursuant to the court’s order, Plaintiff sent Defendant an invoice for $8,007.65 based on half of the rough transcript and real time transcripts provided in T&S v. Mancheno. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact No. 9; Medina Decl., ¶10 and Exh. 1.) Defendant also ordered a Spanish interpreter for Mancheno’s trial testimony, which Plaintiff provided at a cost of $348.00. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact No. 10; Medina Decl., ¶11.) Starting on November 10, 2017, Defendant defaulted on the payments owed to Plaintiff for the aforementioned services despite Plaintiff’s performance of its obligations. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact Nos. 11-15; Medina Decl., ¶¶12-14.) Defendant now owes Plaintiff $9,367.76, plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact No. 16; Medina Decl., ¶15.)

This evidence carries Plaintiff’s initial burden of proof as to Defendant’s liability for the open book account and services rendered causes of action. Plaintiff has demonstrated through evidence that Defendant is indebted to it in a certain amount for services rendered for which there has been no payment. (See Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460.) It has also demonstrated through this evidence that there exists a detailed statement that constitutes the principal record of the parties’ transactions and the debits and credits in connection therewith, entered in the regular course of business, and kept in a reasonably permanent form and manner by Plaintiff. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 337a.) The burden now shifts to Defendant to demonstrate through evidence the existence of a triable issue of material fact regarding her liability. As Defendant has not opposed this motion, however, the Court finds no such triable issue of material fact exists.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.