This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/13/2019 at 01:31:27 (UTC).

CANYON VIEW LIMITED VS. THE BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

Case Summary

On 07/22/2016 CANYON VIEW LIMITED filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against THE BANK OF AMERICA, N A. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7199

  • Filing Date:

    07/22/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Courthouse:

    Chatsworth Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CANYON VIEW LIMITED

Defendants

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

THE BANK OF AMERICA N.A.

ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005-84 MORTGAGE

RECONTRUST COMPANY N.A.

RECONTRUST COMPANY N.A

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

NORMINTON WITA & FUSTER

Defendant Attorney

MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/12/2018
  • Ntc to Reptr/ERM to Prep Transcrpt; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • Ntc to Attorney re Notice of Appeal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • Designation of Record on Appeal; Filed by CANYON VIEW LIMITED (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2017
  • Notice of Appeal; Filed by CANYON VIEW LIMITED (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • at 08:35 AM in Department F49; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees (Motion For Attorney Fees; Court Makes Order) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by CANYON VIEW LIMITED (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • Objection Document Filed; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • Reply/Response; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F49; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • Opposition; Filed by THE BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
45 More Docket Entries
  • 09/16/2016
  • Stipulation and Order; Filed by Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2016
  • Notice of Lis Pendens; Filed by CANYON VIEW LIMITED (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by CANYON VIEW LIMITED (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by CANYON VIEW LIMITED (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by CANYON VIEW LIMITED (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2016
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2016
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: PC057199    Hearing Date: April 1, 2021    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Calendar # 2

Date: 4-1-21

Case #PC 057199

FEES AND COSTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Canyon View Limited dba Canyon View Estates

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants, Bank of America, N.A.; Bank of New York Mellon

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for $7,860.09 in Costs and $174,542.59 in Attorney Fees

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Canyon View Limited dba Canyon View Estates (“Canyon View”) owns and operates a mobile home park. On October 28, 2005, certain third parties entered into a lease for a lot. Lessees breached the lease in 2007, due to their failure to pay rent, utilities and other charges. Lessees vacated the home in 2008, thereby leading to Canyon View filing a complaint for a Declaration of Abandonment and sale. On May 7, 2009, Canyon View purchased the home at a public sale following the judgment in favor of Canyon View. According to Canyon View, the sale provided it with title to the property free of any security interest or lien, except as provided in Health and Safety Code section 18116.1.

Canyon View submitted an Accounting to the court on May 11, 2009. Canyon View recorded its grant deed on February 23, 2010.

On March 19, 2010, defendants recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell. On October 12, 2010, Defendants recorded a Trustee’s Deed upon Sale indicating the sale of the property to Bank of New York for $56,250. Plaintiff discovered said recorded transactions in “early 2016.”

On July 22, 2016, Canyon View filed a verified complaint for Quiet Title, Declaratory Relief, Removal of Cloud on Title, and Unfair Business Practices. On August 10, 2016, Canyon View recorded a lis pendens.

The clerk entered a default against Recontrust Company, N.A. on October 11, 2016. On May 3, Plaintiff dismissed Recontrust Company, N.A.

Also on May 3, 2017, the court entered a stipulation for judgment between Plaintiff and defendants Bank of America, and The Bank of New York Mellon. Stipulating defendants agreed to withdraw any and all claims on the parcel, and recorded a Recission of Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale as well as a Disclaimer of Interest. The parties acknowledged that Plaintiff is a prevailing party for the purposes of recovering attorney fees and costs.

On October 24, 2017, the court granted Defendants’ motion to strike costs and denied Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys fees. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the October 24, 2017 order. On April 17, 2020, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur reversing the order denying the recovery of costs and attorney fees. The motion for attorney fees and costs was filed on July 27, 2020.[1]

RULING: Granted.

Requests for Judicial Notice: Granted. The court takes judicial notice of all orders and opinions, and recorded documents related to the trustee sale, but cannot take judicial notice of the content of any briefs offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

Objections: Overruled.

Plaintiff seeks to recover 7,860.09 in Costs and $174,542.59 in attorney fees. Defendant in opposition challenges the awarded fees on grounds that the requested fees are excessive especially given the four separate motions, which cumulatively seeks a quadrupled amount on similar actions. Defendant contends that at a minimum, the court should pro rata divide the requested attorney fees, as done in the order awarding fees against Lakeview Loan Servicing. Defendant seeks to limit recovery to fees “reasonably” and directly necessary to the Mobilehome Residency Law claim. Defendant finally contends Plaintiff cannot recovery costs, due to the lack of a timely filed memorandum of costs, and no statutory basis exists for certain costs either way.

Plaintiff in reply contends the opposition misstates the appellate opinion allowing for recovery of fees, and instead seeks to “relitigate” the stipulated judgment quieting title which was not the subject matter of the appeal. Plaintiff next contends that Defendant fails to meet their burden of proof for challenging the award. Plaintiff denies seeking any excessive recovery. All fees were incurred on the subject case only. Plaintiff reiterates its entitlement to costs under CCP 798.85 as the party with judgment in its favor.

The Court of Appeal specifically found that Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 798.85 of the Mobile Home Residency Law. The Court of Appeal ordered this court to determine the reasonableness of fees and costs consistent with its order. Any challenge to the right to recovery fees and costs will not be considered.

The lodestar method for determination of fees applies in special motions to strike. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th at p. 1136.)

“‘[T]he lodestar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community; it may be adjusted by the court based on factors including, as relevant herein, (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award. [Citation.] The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the particular action. In effect, the court determines, retrospectively, whether the litigation involved a contingent risk or required extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the unadorned lodestar in order to approximate the fair market rate for such services.’”

(Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc.

The reasonableness of attorney fees lies within the discretion of the trial court. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096.) The court makes it determination based on the consideration of a number of factors, including, “the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case.” (Ibid.) The court should apply an objective standard of reasonableness. (Id. at p. 1098.)

As addressed in Lakeview, the court noted the deficiencies raised in the initial motion, and the clarifications provided in the supplemental briefing. The court did not order supplemental briefing in the instant action, due to the parallels of the actions and prior clarification. The court therefore will award fees consistent with the prior order, but will reduced the amount awarded in that no additional fees were incurred by the parties in the instant hearing for supplemental briefing.

Plaintiff seeks to recover $8,097.46 in costs and $174,542.59 in attorney fees. In previously denied motion for attorney fees leading to the appeal, Plaintiff sought $77,032.10 in attorney fees. Additional fees incurred following the denied motion are part of the instant motion, including fees from the successful appeal.

The appeal itself was in fact a consolidation of four cases. Plaintiff contends that the appeal was for a case of first impression on the issue of whether the Mobile Home Residency Law applied to mobile home park owners and secured creditors of mobile homes. Appellate counsel was retained, thereby increasing the billed amount.

Moving counsel bills at a rate of $325 per hour on this action. Two associates of the law firm billed at rates of 2600-$265/hour and $190-$195/hour, and the paralegal billed at $90/hour. [Declaration of Thomas Normiton.] Appellate counsel billed at a rate of $375 per hour. The court again finds all billable rates reasonable.

The Court of Appeal specifically found that Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 798.85 of the Mobile Home Residency Law. “Thus, in order to enforce the right the MRL guarantees—that a purchaser at an MRL-compliant abandonment or warehouse lien sale receive free and clear title to the mobilehome purchased—Canyon View had no choice but to sue Lakeview, the BONY respondents, and the Household respondents.” (Canyon View Ltd. v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1096, 1115.)”

Defendants took certain positions, even challenging the right to statutory attorney fees, thereby leading to a successful appeal. The court declines to rely on a challenge to specific conclusions made by the Court of Appeal based on argument regarding its own opinion on how title would have/should have/could have been cleared by different means.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal definitively found an entitlement to fees under the MRL. “[A]n action arises out of the MRL when the ‘foundation of the case [is] grounded in [any portion of] the MRL.’” (Id. at p. 1113.) The court therefore declines any argument against the applicability or necessity of the action of prevailing party Canyon View, and determines the reasonableness of the fees. “Upon remand the court shall determine in a manner consistent with this opinion, the amount of reasonable attorney fees and costs to award Canyon View in each of the three actions.” (Id. at p. 1118 (emphasis added).)

Consistent with the prior order on Lakeview Loan Servicing, the court finds the pro rata share of the appellate fees, $19,589.27, reasonable. The court therefore awards this amount for the appellate work in the instant action.

This leaves the issue of the fees billed by moving counsel. The first motion requested fees of $79,483.76. Consistent with the prior order, the court awards the pro rata share of $19,870.94. The court also acknowledges the additional fees incurred in the post judgment argument leading to the appeal, and therefore awards an additional $18,000 in total motion fees. Nevertheless, given less supplemental briefing and the prior work, the court reduces fees incurred for the instant motion to $2,000.

On the procedural challenge to the cots, again, the court of appeal specifically and unequivocally instructed the court to award fees and costs. Defendants correctly argue that Plaintiff technically failed to file a memorandum of costs in compliance with California Rule of Court, Rule 8.278(c)(1). The court finds the challenge applies only to costs awarded on the actual appeal following the remittitur itself, rather than the underlying costs incurred in the action and awarded to plaintiffs as prevailing parties under the Mobilehome Residency Law. The summary of costs shows costs incurred before and after the appeal. To the extent Plaintiff lists costs by date, the court deducts all costs incurred after the On October 24, 2017 order granting the motion to strike fees and costs for a total of $3,849.62.

Total fees and costs of $63,470.68 added up as follows: $19,870.94 in fees leading up to the judgment, $18,00 for post-judgment motion denied attorney fees, $19,589.27 in appellate fees, $2,000 in fees for the instant motion, plus $4,010.47 costs.

Plaintiff to give notice.


[1]New counsel substituted in for both Bank of America and Bank of New York Mellon on September 9, 2020. The parties/court continued the instant hearing in order to allow new counsel an opportunity to file timely oppositions to the motion.

Case Number: PC057199    Hearing Date: September 22, 2020    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Calendar # 4

Date: 9-22-20

Case #PC 057199

FEES AND COSTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Canyon View Limited dba Canyon View Estates

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants, Bank of America, N.A.; Bank of New York Mellon

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for $7,860.09 in Costs and $174,542.59 in Attorney Fees

SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Canyon View Limited dba Canyon View Estates (“Canyon View”) owns and operates a mobile home park. On October 28, 2005, certain third parties entered into a lease for a lot. Lessees breached the lease in 2007, due to their failure to pay rent, utilities and other charges. Lessees vacated the home in 2008, thereby leading to Canyon View filing a complaint for a Declaration of Abandonment and sale. On May 7, 2009, Canyon View purchased the home at a public sale following the judgment in favor of Canyon View. According to Canyon View, the sale provided it with title to the property free of any security interest or lien, except as provided in Health and Safety Code section 18116.1.

Canyon View submitted an Accounting to the court on May 11, 2009. Canyon View recorded its grant deed on February 23, 2010.

On March 19, 2010, defendants recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell. On October 12, 2010, Defendants recorded a Trustee’s Deed upon Sale indicating the sale of the property to Bank of New York for $56,250. Plaintiff discovered said recorded transactions in “early 2016.”

On July 22, 2016, Canyon View filed a verified complaint for Quiet Title, Declaratory Relief, Removal of Cloud on Title, and Unfair Business Practices. On August 10, 2016, Canyon View recorded a lis pendens.

The clerk entered a default against Recontrust Company, N.A. on October 11, 2016. On May 3, Plaintiff dismissed Recontrust Company, N.A.

Also on May 3, 2017, the court entered a stipulation for judgment between Plaintiff and defendants Bank of America, and The Bank of New York Mellon. Stipulating defendants agreed to withdraw any and all claims on the parcel, and recorded a Recission of Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale as well as a Disclaimer of Interest. The parties acknowledged that Plaintiff is a prevailing party for the purposes of recovering attorney fees and costs.

On October 24, 2017, the court granted Defendants’ motion to strike costs and denied Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys fees. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the October 24, 2017 order. On April 17, 2020, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur reversing the order denying the recovery of costs and attorney fees. The motion for attorney fees and costs was filed on July 27, 2020.[1]

RULING: Continued.

The Court of Appeal specifically found that Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 798.85 of the Mobile Home Residency Law. The Court of Appeal ordered this court to determine the reasonableness of fees and costs consistent with its order. Any challenge to the right to recovery fees and costs will not be considered.

The motion remains unopposed. Prior to the hearing date, Plaintiff’s counsel reached out to the court regarding a continuance of the hearing date. The court reserved November 18, 2020. The hearing is therefore continued to the November date. Any opposition and reply shall conform to the statutory deadlines of the new date.

Plaintiff to give notice.


[1]New counsel substituted in for both Bank of America and Bank of New York Mellon on September 9, 2020. The parties/court continued the instant hearing in order to allow new counsel an opportunity to file timely oppositions to the motion.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005-41 MRTG PASS-THROUGH is a litigant

Latest cases where CANYON VIEW LIMITED is a litigant

Latest cases where RECONTRUST COMPANY N.A is a litigant

Latest cases where The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, NA is a litigant