This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/16/2019 at 14:16:28 (UTC).

CHARLES CROSS VS TYLER MORGAN COOPER ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/04/2015 CHARLES CROSS filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against TYLER MORGAN COOPER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MICHAEL P. VICENCIA, ROSS KLEIN and STUART M. RICE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9949

  • Filing Date:

    03/04/2015

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MICHAEL P. VICENCIA

ROSS KLEIN

STUART M. RICE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

CHARLES CROSS - INDIV

CHARLES CROSS

JAG AUTOMOTIVE LLC

INDIV CHARLES CROSS -

CROSS CHARLES

Defendants and Cross Defendants

DOES 1 = 25 INC.

EUROPEAN AUTO SALES - UNL CORP ENTITY

TYLER MORGAN COOPER - INDIV

DOES 1-25

TYLER MORGAN COOPER

EUROPEAN AUTO SALES

COOPER TYLER MORGAN

INDIV TYLER MORGAN COOPER -

NUNES JUSTIN

DENNIS COOPER DBA EUROPEAN AUTO SALES

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

COOPER TYLER MORGAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

KRISTENSEN WEISBERG LLP

JOHN P. KRISTENSEN

KRISTENSEN JOHN P.

Defendant Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF R.M. ANTHONY COSIO

 

Court Documents

Notice

8/22/2018: Notice

Notice

8/22/2018: Notice

Unknown

11/26/2018: Unknown

Proof of Service by Mail

1/11/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Notice of Motion

1/11/2019: Notice of Motion

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/11/2019
  • Notice of Motion; Filed by CHARLES CROSS (Plaintiff); JAG AUTOMOTIVE LLC (Plaintiff); JUSTIN NUNES (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by CHARLES CROSS (Plaintiff); JAG AUTOMOTIVE LLC (Plaintiff); JUSTIN NUNES (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2019
  • Appeal Record Delivered; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2019
  • Appeal - Original Clerk's Transcript 1 - 5 Volumes Certified; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2018
  • Appeal - Clerk's Transcript Fee Paid (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Unknown Event Type - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-08-30 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2018
  • Notice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2018
  • Notice; Filed by CHARLES CROSS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
213 More Docket Entries
  • 03/13/2015
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by CHARLES CROSS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2015
  • Affidavit of Prejudice - Premptory (plntf CHARLES CROSS 170.6 PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE RE HON. ROSS M KLEIN ATTY - KRISTENSEN WEISBERG LLP); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2015
  • Notice; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2015
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2015
  • Summons Filed (ORIGINAL SUMMONS ISSUED AND FILED ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by CHARLES CROSS (Plaintiff); CHARLES CROSS - INDIV (Plaintiff); JAG AUTOMOTIVE LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2015
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2015
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2015
  • Complaint - Third Party; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2014
  • Ex-Parte Application; Filed by TYLER MORGAN COOPER (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: NC059949    Hearing Date: December 07, 2020    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Monday – December 7, 2020

Department B Calendar No. 12

PROCEEDINGS

Charles Cross v. Tyler Cooper, et al.

NC059949

  1. Charles Cross, et al.’s Motion to Tax Costs

    TENTATIVE RULING

    Plaintiffs Charles Cross, Justin Nunes, and JAG Automotive LLC’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Tax Costs is granted, in part.

    “Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. If the cost memorandum was served electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4).” Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(1).

    “Unless objection is made to the entire cost memorandum, the motion to strike or tax costs must refer to each item objected to by the same number and appear in the same order as the corresponding cost item claimed on the memorandum of costs and must state why the item is objectionable.” Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(2).

    “If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 (internal citation omitted).

    Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on March 4, 2015. Plaintiffs alleged the following facts: Defendant used fraud, illegality, and misleading advertising to induce them to purchase a 1973 Austin Mini vehicle which allegedly only had 1173 original miles, and which allegedly was used on the 2003 film “The Italian Job.” In fact, it was not used on the film and the miles far exceeded of that represented. Plaintiff set forth causes of action for: 1. Fraud; 2. Breach of Contract; 3. Violations of UCL; 4. Violations of False Advertising; 5. Violations of the CLRA.

    The trial ended on October 4, 2017 when the parties came to a settlement on the record. After Defendant failed to make the required payments, judgment was entered in favor of

    Plaintiffs in the sum of $95,000.00. Post-judgment motions filed by Defendant were denied. Defendant filed an appeal. The Court of Appeal reversed, in part, with instructions. The Court of Appeal stated that Defendant had no basis for relieving him of his settlement obligations and that the Court did not err in denying all post-trial motions. However, the Court of Appeal stated that the Judgment did not reflect the October 4, 2017 settlement and, thus, needed to be revised. The action was remanded back to the trial court on that ground and Defendant was ordered costs on appeal. Defendant filed his memorandum of costs on October 9, 2020.

    First, Plaintiffs’ request to strike the entire memorandum based on untimeliness is denied. Plaintiffs cite to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.891(c)(1) which provides 30 days after issuance of the remittitur to file a memorandum of costs. However, Rule 8.891 applies to cases brought in the Superior Court Appellate Division. However, here, the case was an unlimited civil matter and the appeal was brought in the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. Therefore, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278 applies. Under, Rule 8.278(c)(1), “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.” Here, Defendant timely served and filed the memorandum within 40 days of the issuance of the remittitur.

    Item 1: Filing Fees

    “A party may recover only the following costs, if reasonable: (A) Filing fees[.]” Cal. Rules of Court, 8.278(d)(1)(A). In the memorandum of costs, Defendant sought $2,108.27 in filing fees. However, after the filing of the motion to tax costs, which has placed the costs at issue, Defendant has now adequately demonstrated filing fees in the amount of $1,771.00. (Decl., Hannah F. Jones, ¶¶ 6-7.) Thus, the motion to tax costs as to filing fees is granted in part, and the amount of filing fees is reduced from $2,108.27 to $1,771.00.

    Item 4: Printing and Copying of Briefs

    “A party may recover only the following costs, if reasonable: The cost to print and reproduce any brief, including any petition for rehearing or review, answer, or reply[.]” Cal. Rules of Court, 8.278(d)(1)(D). Plaintiff seeks to strike $75.50 based on the contention that documents were submitted electronically. However, Defendant has adequately demonstrated that these costs were reasonably incurred because Defendant was required to serve printed version of these documents upon Plaintiffs. (Decl., Hannah F. Jones, ¶ 8.) The motion to tax costs as to printing and copying fees is denied.

    Item 6: Transmitting, filing, and serving of record, briefs, and other papers

    “A party may recover only the following costs, if reasonable: The cost to notarize, serve, mail, and file the record, briefs, and other papers” Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.278(d)(1)(D). In the Memorandum of Costs on Appeal, Defendant claimed $14.67 in the section labeled “transmitting, filing, and serving of record, briefs, and other papers.” However, Defendant has adequately explained that some of the costs set forth in filing fees should have been memorialized under Item 6. The amount under this Section was actually $257.94. (Decl., Hannah F. Jones, ¶ 9.) These costs were reasonable and necessary and a mere clerical error in documenting where in the memorandum of costs that these costs should be reflected is not a basis for striking these costs.

    Thus, based on the facts noted above, the memorandum of costs now reflects that the total amount of costs recoverable is $2,104.44. Therefore, the total amount of costs taxed from the initial memorandum of costs, which sought costs in the amount of $2,198.44, is $94.00.

    The Court makes no ruling at this time to the parties’ respective arguments regarding attorneys’ fees as an element of costs as a motion for attorneys’ fees is currently scheduled for March 15, 2021.

    Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.