This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/07/2019 at 14:03:07 (UTC).

FOOTHILL TERRACE, LTD VS NADINE B. JOHNSON

Case Summary

On 09/11/2015 FOOTHILL TERRACE, LTD filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against NADINE B JOHNSON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is PETER A. HERNANDEZ. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7894

  • Filing Date:

    09/11/2015

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

FOOTHILL TERRACE LTD

FOOTHILL TERRACE MOBILE HOME PARK

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

CULLEN BEVERLY

CULLEN JOHN

CULLEN JOHN A.

CULLEN ROGER

JOHNSON KIRK

JOHNSON NADINE B.

JOHNSON SCOTT

JOHNSON STEVEN

WATERS KATHRYN M.

JOHNSON STEVEN F.

WATERS KAY

JOHNSON SCOTT D.

JOHNSON KIRK B.

Not Classified By Court

TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION

HUNT ISABEL

MORIN DEBORAH

NATIONWIDE LEGAL LLC

2 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

DOWDALL TERRY R. ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

DOONAN D. SCOTT

DOONAN D. SCOTT ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Judgment

6/29/2018: Judgment

Notice of Entry of Judgment

7/12/2018: Notice of Entry of Judgment

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

7/23/2018: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Motion for Order

7/23/2018: Motion for Order

Ex Parte Application

8/2/2018: Ex Parte Application

Opposition

8/2/2018: Opposition

Opposition

10/24/2018: Opposition

Declaration

10/24/2018: Declaration

Other -

10/24/2018: Other -

Notice

10/26/2018: Notice

Reply

10/30/2018: Reply

Notice of Continuance

11/5/2018: Notice of Continuance

Appeal - Notice Court Reporter to Prepare Appeal Transcript

11/7/2018: Appeal - Notice Court Reporter to Prepare Appeal Transcript

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

11/27/2018: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Minute Order

11/27/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

11/28/2018: Minute Order

Certificate of Mailing for

11/28/2018: Certificate of Mailing for

Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal

2/26/2019: Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/04/2019
  • Appeal - Original Clerk's Transcript 1 - 5 Volumes Certified; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • Appeal - Clerk's Transcript Fee Paid (PAID BY DOONAN & DOONAN, INC FOR RESPONDENT)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • Appeal - Clerk's Transcript Fee Paid (APPELLANT PAID)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • at 2:00 PM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter Re: Defendants and Cross-Complaina...) of 11/28/2018); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • Minute Order ((Ruling on Submitted Matter Re: Defendants and Cross-Complaina...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • Minute Order ((Defendant and Cross-Complainants, Nadine Johnson, Trustee of ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
166 More Docket Entries
  • 11/25/2015
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2015
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2015
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2015
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2015
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2015
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2015
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2015
  • Demurrer; Filed by FOOTHILL TERRACE MOBILE HOME PARK (Legacy Party); FOOTHILL TERRACE, LTD (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC067894    Hearing Date: October 07, 2020    Dept: O

Plaintiff and Appellant Foothill Terrace, Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) moves to tax costs pursuant to California Rules of Court (“CRC”) 3.1700(b) after an appeal. After hearing, the motion is GRANTED.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding. (CCP § 1032(b).)

The losing party may dispute any or all of the items in the prevailing party’s memorandum of costs by a motion to strike or tax costs. (CRC 3.1700(b).) 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. (Ladas v. California State Automotive Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-774.) 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. (Ibid.)

On May 4, 2020, the appellate court issued a remittitur against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants and Respondents Nadine Johnson, Scott Johnson, Steven Johnson, Kirk Johnson, Kathryn M. Waters, John A. Cullen, Roger Cullen, and Beverly Cullen (“Defendants”). Plaintiff filed a memorandum of cost for award on appeal on June 22, 2020. Defendant, however, argues that the request for attorney fees as cost is improper because such a request needs to be accompanied by a noticed motion for attorney fees. The Court agrees with Plaintiff.

Attorney Fees on Appeal

The right to recover costs of suit is determined entirely by statute. (CCP § 1032 et seq.) “It is axiomatic that the right to recover costs is purely statutory, and, in the absence of an authorizing statute, no costs can be recovered by either party.” (Davis v. KGO-T.V., Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 436, 439; Garcia v. Hyster Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 724, 732; Sanchez v. Pacificare Health Systems (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 946, 948.)

CRC 3.1702 mandates that requests for attorney fees must be made through a notice of motion, and that such motion needs to be served and filed within the time for filing and serving the memorandum of costs. (CRC 3.1702, subd. (c)(1).) The rules have the force of statute to the extent that they are not inconsistent with legislative enactments and constitutional provisions. (In re Richard S. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857, 863; see also Lewow v. Surfside III Condominium Owners’ Assn., Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 128, 133 (applying this statement of law to CRC 3.1702.)

Defendants failed to timely file their motion for attorney’s fees. As Plaintiff points out, Defendants successfully filed and served their memorandum of costs on appeal on June 22, 2020, but did not and still have not filed or served a notice of motion for attorney’s fees with their memorandum of costs. The Court’s concern largely stems from the fact that Defendants admit they knew they had to file a motion for attorney’s fees with the memorandum of cost, but instead attempt to shift the blame on the Court’s Reservation System.

Defendants successfully filed their memorandum of cost on June 22, 2020. However, up through today’s hearing date, Defendants have not filed a Motion for Attorney’s fees. The Court’s reservation system has been operating since July 6, 2020, the Presiding Judge’s orders provided for judicial holidays from March 17, 2020 through June 10, 2020. As a result, Defendants should have filed their motion 40 days after June 10, 2020. Moreover, there has been no ex parte application seeking to shorten time to hear the motion. Equally, important, Defendants have not shown any legal authority to grant them relief from the mandatory language of the rules governing attorney’s fees. Their Opposition only requests equitable relief for essentially three mistakes that Defendants counsel made: (1) in assuming that he did not need to timely file a motion for attorney fees, (2) for failing to check the system for reminders of the July 6, 2020 date when the court’s reservation system would come back online, and (3) for not filing the motion prior to this hearing. The Court notes that Defendants’ counsel failed to correct either error at any point, and instead attempts to improperly rely on an Opposition to this motion to correct this error.

CRC 8.278 also states that a party may serve and file a motion in the superior court to strike or tax costs claimed under (1) in the manner required by rule 3.1700. CRC 3.1700 states that any notice of motion to strike or tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost of memorandum with applicable CCP deadline extensions. While the Court notes that the memorandum of costs was served by regular U.S. mail on June 22, 2020, that only extends the deadline by 5 calendar days under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, making Plaintiff’s motion due on July 12, 2020. However, July 12, 2020 fell on a Sunday, which allowed Plaintiff to file its motion on July 13, 2020. At present, the only issue before the Court is whether it should grant Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs. Because Defendants failed to file a timely motion for attorney’s fees, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to Item #9 in Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION is a litigant

Latest cases where NATIONWIDE LEGAL LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DOONAN D. SCOTT