Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/05/2019 at 03:45:48 (UTC).

BRITTANIE NEWMAN VS KNIT CREATIONS INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/06/2016 BRITTANIE NEWMAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against KNIT CREATIONS INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DANIEL S. MURPHY. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6028

  • Filing Date:

    04/06/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DANIEL S. MURPHY

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

NEWMAN BRITTANIE

MALKIN BRETT R.

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-25

CHANG ELBERT

CHANG JACK

KNIT CREATIONS INC

LAMADE.COM

Not Classified By Court

TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION

DOWNS MARGARET

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

ENDLER LAW APLC

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

HSU RAY ESQ.

 

Court Documents

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY)

5/10/2018: MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY)

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES MOTION TO TAX COSTS.

7/18/2018: ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES MOTION TO TAX COSTS.

Unknown

9/13/2018: Unknown

Unknown

12/5/2018: Unknown

ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/19/2016: ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Unknown

10/7/2016: Unknown

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT (2) FRAUD (3) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS (4) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS (5) NEGLIGENT INTE

10/7/2016: CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT (2) FRAUD (3) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS (4) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS (5) NEGLIGENT INTE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/9/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

NOTICE OF RULING OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO THE CROSS-COMPLAINT

3/2/2017: NOTICE OF RULING OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO THE CROSS-COMPLAINT

Minute Order

5/22/2017: Minute Order

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR (1) MOTION TO AMEND THE CROSS-COMPLAINT TO FILE SECOND AMENDED CROSS- COMPLAINT AND (2) MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE

9/25/2017: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR (1) MOTION TO AMEND THE CROSS-COMPLAINT TO FILE SECOND AMENDED CROSS- COMPLAINT AND (2) MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE

PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE MOTION TO AMEND PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/29/2017: PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE MOTION TO AMEND PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

KX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/29/2017: KX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order

9/29/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/12/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CROSS-DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF;ETC.

10/24/2017: NOTICE OF CROSS-DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF;ETC.

SECOND AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT (2) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS; ETC

11/21/2017: SECOND AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT (2) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS; ETC

DEFENDANTS KNIT CREATIONS INC., ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF BRITTANIE NEWMAN'S UNVERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

11/28/2017: DEFENDANTS KNIT CREATIONS INC., ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF BRITTANIE NEWMAN'S UNVERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

130 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/23/2019
  • Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment; Filed by Brittanie Newman (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Writ of Execution ((Los Angeles)); Filed by Brittanie Newman (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • Declaration (re Interest After Judgment); Filed by Brittanie Newman (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by Brittanie Newman (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Appeal Record Delivered; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • Appeal - Original Clerk's Transcript 1 - 5 Volumes Certified; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Appeal - Clerk's Transcript Fee Paid

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • Notice of Association of Counsel; Filed by Brittanie Newman (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2018
  • Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103; Filed by Knit Creations, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
253 More Docket Entries
  • 06/22/2016
  • Opposition Document; Filed by Brittanie Newman (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2016
  • NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER; DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2016
  • Demurrer; Filed by Knit Creations, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Brittanie Newman (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2016
  • PROOFS OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON ALL DEFENDANTS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2016
  • VERIHED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC616028    Hearing Date: September 30, 2020    Dept: 32

brittanie newman,

Plaintiff,

v.

KNIT CREATIONS INC., et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: BC616028

Hearing Date: September 30, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to tax costs

Background

Plaintiff Brittanie Newman (Newman) commenced this action against Defendants Knit Creations, Inc. (Knit), LAmade, Jack Chang (Jack), and Elbert Chang (Elbert) on April 6, 2016. Newman dismissed Jack and Elbert from the action without prejudice on September 11, 2017. Newman’s operative pleading is the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) filed on November 17, 2017 against Knit and LAmade. The SAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) violation of the Independent Wholesale Sales Representatives Contractual Relations Act of 1990 (Civ. Code § 1738.10, et seq.), (3) common counts, (4) promissory estoppel, and (5) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Knit, Jack, and Elbert commenced a cross-action against Newman, Brittanie Newman, Inc., and Brett R. Malkin on October 7, 2016. Their operative pleading is the Second Amended Cross-Complaint (SAXC) filed on November 21, 2017 against Newman exclusively. The SAXC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) intentional interference with contractual relations, (4) negligent interference with prospective economic relations, and (5) inducing breach of contract.

From February 6 to February 8, 2018, this matter came before the Court for trial. On March 9, 2018, the Court issued its statement of decision finding that Newman’s first three causes of action against Knit had merit. The Court also found that Newman is a prevailing party entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs. Judgment was entered in Newman’s favor and against Knit in the total amount of $41,048.60 on April 25, 2018.

On July 18, 2018, the Court awarded Newman attorney fees of $85,750 pursuant to a statutory fee provision (Civ. Code § 1738.16). Knit appealed the attorney fee award. The appellate court affirmed the award. Remittitur was issued on June 12, 2020.

On September 23, 2020, the Court denied Newman’s motion for attorney fees on appeal because the motion was untimely filed.

Legal Standard

“[T]he party prevailing in the Court of Appeal in a civil case … is entitled to costs on appeal.” (CRC Rule 8.278(a)(1).) “The prevailing party is the respondent if the Court of Appeal affirms the judgment without modification or dismisses the appeal.” (CRC Rule 8.278(a)(2).)

“Within 40 days after issuance of the remittitur, a party claiming costs awarded by a reviewing court must serve and file in the superior court a verified memorandum of costs under rule 3.1700.” (CRC Rule 8.278(c)(1).) Recoverable costs include filing fees, the amount paid for any portion of the record, costs to print and reproduce any brief, and costs to serve, mail, and file the record, briefs, and other papers. (CRC Rule 8.278(d)(1).)

Discussion

Knit moves to tax all costs requested by Newman in her motion for attorney fees. Knit contends that Newman is not entitled to costs because Newman failed to file a verified memorandum of costs within 40 days of remittitur’s issuance.

Knit’s motion is well-taken. A party’s failure to serve and file a cost bill on appeal within the requisite 40 days waives and forfeits the party’s entitlement to such costs. (Moulin Electric Corp. v. Roach (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 1067, 1070.) In this case, Newman never filed and served a cost bill on appeal so Newman waived and forfeited her entitlement to such costs. Moreover, even assuming that Newman’s motion for attorney fees and costs served as her memorandum of costs, this motion was filed 59 days after remittitur’s issuance. As such, Newman’s costs bill would remain untimely.

Newman’s good cause showing is irrelevant because she did not file a costs bill and because the good cause requirement set forth in CRC Rule 3.1702 applies to motions for attorney fees. Further, this good cause showing remains unpersuasive for the reasons identified in the Court’s ruling on her motion for attorney fees on appeal.

Conclusion

Knit’s motion to tax costs is granted. Newman is not entitled to an award of costs on appeal.

Case Number: BC616028    Hearing Date: September 23, 2020    Dept: 32

brittanie newman,

Plaintiff,

v.

KNIT CREATIONS INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC616028

Hearing Date: September 23, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for attorney fees

Background

Plaintiff Brittanie Newman (Newman) commenced this action against Defendants Knit Creations, Inc. (Knit), LAmade, Jack Chang (Jack), and Elbert Chang (Elbert) on April 6, 2016. Newman dismissed Jack and Elbert from the action without prejudice on September 11, 2017. Newman’s operative pleading is the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) filed on November 17, 2017 against Knit and LAmade. The SAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) violation of the Independent Wholesale Sales Representatives Contractual Relations Act of 1990 (Civ. Code § 1738.10, et seq.), (3) common counts, (4) promissory estoppel, and (5) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Knit, Jack, and Elbert commenced a cross-action on October 7, 2016. Their operative pleading is the Second Amended Cross-Complaint (SAXC) filed on November 21, 2017 against Newman exclusively. The SAXC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) intentional interference with contractual relations, (3) negligent interference with prospective economic relations, and (4) inducing breach of contract.

From February 6 to February 8, 2018, this matter came before the Court for trial.

On March 9, 2018, the Court issued its statement of decision finding that Newman’s first three causes of action against Knit had merit. The Court also found that Newman is a prevailing party entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs. Judgment was entered in Newman’s favor and against Knit in the total amount of $41,048.60 on April 25, 2018.

On July 18, 2018, the Court awarded Newman attorney fees of $85,750 pursuant to a statutory fee provision (Civ. Code § 1738.16). Knit appealed the attorney fee award. The appellate court affirmed the award. Remittitur was issued on June 12, 2020.

Discussion

Newman moves for an award of attorney fees on appeal in the total amount of $11,200.

Knit contends that Newman is not entitled to an award of attorney fees because Newman failed to timely bring this motion. Knit points out that a motion to claim attorney fees on appeal “must be served and filed within the time for serving and filing the memorandum of costs under rule 8.278(c)(1) in an unlimited case,” that is, “within 40 days after issuance of the remittitur.” (CRC Rules 3.1702(c)(1), 8.278(c)(1).) Remittitur was issued on June 12, 2020, and Newman brought this motion on August 10, 2020, that is, 59 days later.

In response, Newman acknowledges that she did not file this motion within 40 days of the issuance of remittitur but argues that good cause supports this delay. Newman explains that the motion was untimely filed because of her attorney’s confusion about the numerous emergency rules promulgated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“For good cause, the trial judge may extend the time for filing a motion for attorney’s fees in the absence of a stipulation or for a longer period than allowed by stipulation.” (CRC Rule 3.1702(d).) “Rule 3.1702(d) is ‘remedial’ and is to be given a liberal, rather than strict interpretation.” (Lewow v. Surfside III Condominium Owner’' Assn., Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 128, 135.) “A court may grant a request for extension of time to file a motion for attorney’s fees even if the motion is not filed until after the deadline for filing an attorney’s fees motion under Rule 3.1702.” (Robinson v. U-Haul Co. of California (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 304, 326.) Good cause is “equated to a good reason for a party’s failure to perform that specific requirement [of the statute] from which he seeks to be excused.” (Id. at 327.) The “good cause” standard of Rule 3.1702(d) gives trial courts “considerably more latitude in ruling on an extension of time to file an attorney’s fees motion” than granting relief from a judgment, dismissal, or order under CCP section 473(b). (Ibid.)

Newman’s showing of good cause is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, Newman has failed to submit any evidence demonstrating this alleged confusion about the emergency rules. Second, any such confusion does not excuse Newman’s 19-day delay in bringing this motion. The Court is unaware of, and Newman has failed to cite to, any emergency rule which reasonably suggests that the time to bring a motion for attorney fees was altered in the relevant timeframe — June to August 2020. Because Newman’s motion for attorney fees is untimely, Newman’s motion for attorney fees is denied.[1]

Conclusion

Newman’s motion for an award of attorney fees is denied. The Court shall consider Newman’s requests for costs and Knit’s opposition to that request in Knit’s motion to tax Newman’s costs bill set to be heard on September 30, 2020.


[1] Absent this timeliness issue, Newman would be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees incurred on appeal. At trial, Newman succeeded in proving Knit’s violation of the Independent Wholesale Sales Representatives Contractual Relations Act of 1990. That Act has an attorney fee provision stating in full: “In a civil action brought by the sales representative pursuant to this chapter, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in addition to any other recovery.” (Civ. Code § 1738.16.) Because this statutory provision does not provide otherwise, it implicitly authorizes the prevailing party’s recovery of attorney fees incurred on appeal. (Garcia v. Bellflower Unified School Dist. Governing Bd. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1067 (“A statute providing for an attorney fee award to the prevailing party in litigation ordinarily also authorizes an award of fees incurred on appeal even if it does not expressly so state.”); Morcos v. Board of Retirement (1990) 51 Cal.3d 924, 927 (“[I]t is established that fees, if recoverable at all—pursuant either to statute or parties’ agreement—are available for services at trial and on appeal.”).) Newman prevailed on appeal; therefore, Newman is entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Knit Creations, Inc is a litigant

Latest cases where TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION is a litigant