On 06/17/2016 GLENDALE ACCEPTANCE filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against YVONNE JOHNSON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DALILA CORRAL LYONS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DALILA CORRAL LYONS
DOES 1 - 10
JOHNSON YVONNE AKA YVONNE MANESH AKA YVONNE YVONNE JOHNSON
DOES 1 - 10
JOHNSON YVONNE AKA YVONNE MANESH AKA YVONNE YVONNE JOHNSON
JOHNSON YVONNE AKA YVONNE MANESH
WESTCO INSURANCE COMPANY
DAVANI M. J. AKA MAHMOOK JAFARZADEH DAVANI
DAVANI JEFF DBA ARINA BUILDERS
STATE NATONAL INSURANCE COMPANY INC.
BUSINESS ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY
GONZALEZ ASCENCION AKA ASENCION GONZALEZ
GLENDALE ACCEPTANCE LLC
AGC BUILDLERS INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS ROE 6
PARIKH SAGAR ESQ.
PARIKH SAGAR P. ESQ.
LIBO DAVID J.
SANDERS STEPHEN M.
DORENFELD DAVID K
5/16/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER:)
7/23/2019: Notice of Mandatory Evaluation Conference - NOTICE OF MANDATORY EVALUATION CONFERENCE NOTICE OF MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
8/12/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service
8/23/2019: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)
9/10/2019: Summons - SUMMONS ON AMENDED CROSS COMPLAINT (1ST)
10/7/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
11/13/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS
1/26/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL
3/28/2018: DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT YVONNE JOHNSON'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING CROSSDEFENDANT JEFF DAVANI'S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND FOR AN O
3/28/2018: DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT YVONNE JOHNSON'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING MATTERS IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET ONE ADMITTED AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINS
4/3/2018: NOTICE OF RULING AFTER STATUS CONFERENCE
4/27/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF DECLARATION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY, ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF JEFF DAVANI
5/1/2018: OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/CROSS- COMPLAINANT YVONNE JOHN SON'S (1) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; ETC
6/13/2017: Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail -
6/28/2017: DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. SANDERS RE OSC
7/10/2017: Minute Order -
Hearing06/01/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing05/20/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing05/14/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing01/29/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Tax CostsRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order ([of Motion]); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 20, Dalila Corral Lyons, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs (Filed by Plaintiff Glendale Acceptance - crs# 398263289967) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 20, Dalila Corral Lyons, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 20, Dalila Corral Lyons, Presiding; Final Status Conference (AndStatus of Cross-Complaint filed on 9/10/19 by Wesco Insurance) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 20, Dalila Corral Lyons, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial and Extend Discovery and Other Deadlines Consistent with the new Trial Date; Declaration of Steven Rein; Memorandum of Points and Authorities) - Held - Advanced and HeardRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 3:34 PM in Department 20, Dalila Corral Lyons, Presiding; Ex-Parte ProceedingsRead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 24; Unknown Event Type - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2016-07-29 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketPEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., 170.6)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPeremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer (CCP 170.6) against the Honorable Robert L. Hess, Dept. 24; Filed by Glendale Acceptance (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTIONRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. QUANTUM MERUIT 2. WORK, LABOR, AND MATERIALS 3. FORECLOSURE OF MECHANIC'S LIENRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC624204 Hearing Date: January 29, 2020 Dept: 20
Judge Dalila C. Lyons
Hearing Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Case Name: Glendale Acceptance, LLC v. Yvonne Johnson
Case No.: BC624204
Motion: Tax Costs
Moving Party: Plaintiff Glendale Acceptance, LLC
Responding Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Yvonne Johnson
Ruling: Plaintiff Glendale Acceptance, LLC’s motion to tax Defendant/Cross-Complainant Yvonne Johnson’s costs is DENIED.
Moving Party shall give notice.
On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice the Complaint against Defendant. On August 23, 2019, Defendant filed a memorandum of costs. On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed the present motion to tax costs.
Plaintiff moves to strike all six items from Defendant’s memorandum of costs because those costs were not incurred to defend against the Complaint, rather to prosecute Defendant’s cross-complaints. Because there has been no prevailing party determined on the SECOND Amended Cross Complaint (SAXC), Defendant cannot recover the claimed costs from Plaintiff.
Defendant opposes the motion to strike because the motion to strike was filed more than 15 days after the memorandum of costs was served. Also, the notice of the hearing on the motion to strike gave the original hearing date as December 2, 2019, when the original hearing was December 3, 2019. Finally, Defendant reframes the costs incurred in prosecuting her SAXC as necessary to defend against the Complaint because those costs were necessary to show Defendant was not liable to Plaintiff, since Plaintiff’s Assignor had an invalid claim against Defendant.
I. Procedural Defects
A. Time Limit for Contesting Costs
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700, provides that: “A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of mailing of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first. The memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case.” CRC 3.1700(a).
Here, dismissal was entered and mailed on August 20, 2019. Defendant filed a memorandum of costs on August 23, 2019. Defendant timely sought costs.
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700, also provides that: “any notice of motion to strike or 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.” CRC 3.1700(b)(1). Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 states service by mail extends the notice period by five days if the place of mailing and the place of address are within California. CCP § 1013(a).
Here, Defendant served the memorandum of costs by mail on August 23, 2019, from Simi Valley, California, to Beverly Hills, California. Thus, Plaintiff received notice of the memorandum of costs on August 28, 2019. Therefore, Plaintiff had until September 12, 2019, to file and serve a notice of motion to tax costs. Plaintiff filed and served the present motion to tax costs on September 13, 2019, one day late. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is barred by California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(1).
“The party claiming costs and the party contesting costs may agree to extend the time for serving and filing the cost memorandum and a motion to strike or tax costs. This agreement must be confirmed in writing, specify the extended date for service and be filed with the clerk. In the absence of an agreement, the court may extend the times for serving and filing the cost memorandum or the notice of motion to strike or tax costs for a period not to exceed 30 days.” CRC 3.1700(b)(3).
Here, the Court will not exercise its discretion to allow Plaintiff’s motion because Plaintiff’s motion fails for the substantive reasons discussed below as well as the procedural reason discussed above.
II. Prevailing Party
A “prevailing party” entitled to costs: In general, the “prevailing party” is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs for suit in any action or proceeding. CCP § 1032(b); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606; Scott Co. of Calif. v. Blount, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1103, 1108. Assuming the “prevailing party” requirements are met, the trial court has no discretion to order each party to bear his or her own costs of suit. Michell v. Olick (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1198; Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 129. The term “prevailing party” for costs purposes is defined by statute to include:
C The party with a net monetary recovery;
C A defendant who is dismissed from the action;
C A defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant recovers anything; and
C A defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant. (CCP § 1032(a)(4).)
If the party does not fall within one of these four express categories, the court may exercise its discretion to award or deny costs. See Lincoln v. Schurgin (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 100, 105.
Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff dismissed Defendant from this action on August 20, 2019. Under CCP § 1032(a)(4), Defendant is a prevailing party entitled to recover costs from Plaintiff only.
III. Costs: Items and Amounts
“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 Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 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.
CCP § 1033.5 provides the items that are allowable as costs under CCP § 1032. 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 Rule 3.1700(b). Technically, a motion to strike challenges the entire costs bill whereas a motion to tax challenges particular items or amounts.
Here, Plaintiff challenges all six items of Defendant’s costs arguing Defendant incurred those costs prosecuting Defendant’s SAXC rather than defending against Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant is the prevailing party on the Complaint only, so Defendant should not be allowed to recover the listed costs. Defendant retorts that the costs were necessary to defend against the Complaint’s assertion of a mechanic’s lien and claims for non-payment by deposing the general contractor, Jeff Davani.
The Court agrees with Defendant that the costs were reasonable and necessary to not only prosecute Defendant’s SAXC but also defend against the Complaint because the factual issues significantly overlap between the Complaint and the SAXC. Plaintiff sued Defendant on a mechanic’s lien and claims for non-payment of plumbing work on Defendant’s house, which causes of action were assigned to Plaintiff by Arina Builders. Defendant’s SAXC alleges Jeff Davani d/b/a Arina Builders poorly performed the plumbing work on Defendant’s house. Therefore, the factual issues surrounding the plumbing work done at Defendant’s house are highly relevant to both the Complaint and the SAXC. Because these facts apply to both the Complaint and the SAXC, any costs incurred to establish these facts would also apply to both the Complaint and the SAXC. Therefore, Defendant’s costs were incurred in the action in which Defendant is the prevailing party.
Further, it is doubtful that Plaintiff would have dismissed the Complaint if Defendant had not incurred costs to establish the claims assigned to Plaintiff by Cross-Defendant Jeff Davani d/b/a Arin Builders were not as valid as they first appeared. Plaintiff raises no other arguments against Defendant’s costs.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to tax/strike costs is DENIED.
 Defendant also argues that notice of the original hearing was improper because Plaintiff’s Notice listed the wrong date for the original hearing. The Court need not address that argument because the hearing has been rescheduled and the Court itself gave proper notice of the rescheduled hearing. Defendant has suffered no prejudice.