This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/22/2015 at 23:24:13 (UTC).

BANK OF THE WEST VS ROY CABRERA

Case Summary

On 01/08/2009 BANK OF THE WEST filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against ROY CABRERA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are AURELIO MUNOZ and MATTHEW ST. GEORGE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5219

  • Filing Date:

    01/08/2009

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

AURELIO MUNOZ

MATTHEW ST. GEORGE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

BANK OF THE WEST

Defendants

CABRERA ROY

DOES 1 THROUGH 80

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

REED JAMES T. JR. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

1/8/2009: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR MONEY 1. BREACH OF MOTOR VEHICLE CONTRACT; ETC.

1/8/2009: COMPLAINT FOR MONEY 1. BREACH OF MOTOR VEHICLE CONTRACT; ETC.

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1/13/2009: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

1/23/2009: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

4/1/2009: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

4/1/2009: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Minute Order

4/27/2009: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF JAMES T. REED, JR. RE STATUS OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

7/16/2009: DECLARATION OF JAMES T. REED, JR. RE STATUS OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

ORIGINAL MOTOR VEHICLE CONTRACT SUBMITTED FOR NOTATION OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR RETURN, ETC.

7/20/2009: ORIGINAL MOTOR VEHICLE CONTRACT SUBMITTED FOR NOTATION OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR RETURN, ETC.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE IN SUPPORT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

7/23/2009: STATEMENT OF THE CASE IN SUPPORT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT

7/23/2009: REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT

DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY COURT

7/23/2009: DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY COURT

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

7/23/2009: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Minute Order

7/23/2009: Minute Order

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

8/3/2009: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION

5/17/2010: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION

ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT

10/30/2014: ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT

ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT

1/21/2015: ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/27/2015
  • paper file imaged and destroyed Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2015
  • Miscellaneous-Other (ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2014
  • Judgment (ASSIGNMENT OF ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2011
  • Satisfaction of Judgment-Partial Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2010
  • Order to Appear for Examination Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2009
  • Abstract of Judgment Filed by Attorney for Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2009
  • Notice of Entry of Judgment Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2009
  • Statement of Case (IN SUPPORT OF DJ ) Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2009
  • Declaration (OF APRIL CURTIS IN SUPPORT OF DJ; ) Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2009
  • Request for Dismissal Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2009
  • Default Judgment Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2009
  • Miscellaneous-Other (Original Motor Vehicle Contract Submitted for Notation of Entry of Judgement & Request for Return ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2009
  • Declaration (of James T. Reed, Jr. Re Status of Default Judgement ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2009
  • Order-Case Management Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2009
  • Default Entered (ROY CABRERA ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2009
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2009
  • Proof-Personal Service (Summons & Complaint, etc. ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2009
  • Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2009
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC405219    Hearing Date: January 28, 2020    Dept: 47

Bank of the West v. Roy Cabrera, et al.

 

MOTION FOR ORDER FOR APPROVAL OF COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES

MOVING PARTY: Assignee Baseline Financial Services

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of January 24, 2020.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Bank of the West alleged that Defendant breached a motor vehicle contract that was assigned to it, under which Defendant was to pay $465.59/month for 239 months, beginning on June 16, 2007. Defendant allegedly defaulted on July 16, 2008. On April 1, 2009, default was entered against Defendant, and judgment was entered on July 23, 2009. On January 21, 2015, an assignment of judgment was filed, indicating that the right to collect the judgment has been assigned from Bank of the West to Baseline Financial Services.

Assignee Baseline Financial Services seeks approval of its costs and attorney’s fees.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Assignee Baseline Financial Services’ motion for order for approval of costs and attorney fees is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Approval of Costs and Attorney Fees

Assignee moves for an award of attorney’s fees and costs under CCP §§ 1032(a)(4) and 1033.5(a)(10)(A) against Defendant Roy Cabrera.

CCP § 1032(a)(4) defines “prevailing party” for the purpose of recovery of costs under CCP § 1032(b) by the prevailing party. Pursuant to that section, the “prevailing party” includes “the party with a net monetary recovery.” (CCP § 1032(a)(4).) Here, that party was Bank of the West, which recovered $63,321.31 against Defendant on July 23, 2009, with the notice of entry of judgment filed on August 3, 2009.

CCP § 1032 does not specify that an assignee may be considered a “prevailing party” for purposes of an award of fees or costs, and the Assignee here has not cited any authority for that proposition. CCP § 1032 does state that “in situations other than as specified, the ‘prevailing party’ shall be as determined by the court,” in which case the Court, “in its discretion, may allow costs or not,” but the Assignee here has not relied on that language to support its request.

Even more problematic, however, is the lack of a basis for the award of fees. CCP § 1033.5(a)(10)(A), cited by the Assignee, provides that attorney’s fees are allowable under § 1032 when authorized by contract. Here, however, assignee has not submitted any contract authorizing its recovery of attorney’s fees. Thus, assignee has not shown any basis on which it is entitled to recover its fees. A judgment creditor may recover costs incurred in enforcing a judgment under CCP § 685.040 under certain circumstances, but the Assignee has not relied on that statute as the basis for its motion.

Accordingly, Assignee’s motion for approval of costs and attorney fees is DENIED.

Assignee to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2020 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org