Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/10/2021 at 00:37:44 (UTC).

MARIA J. MEJIA VS BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/15/2013 MARIA J MEJIA filed a Property - Foreclosure lawsuit against BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ROBERT S. HARRISON, STEVEN J. KLEIFIELD, MATTHEW ST. GEORGE, ROBERT B. BROADBELT and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3092

  • Filing Date:

    03/15/2013

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Property - Foreclosure

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ROBERT S. HARRISON

STEVEN J. KLEIFIELD

MATTHEW ST. GEORGE

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Appellants

MEJIA MARIA J.

MEJIA MARIA JESUS

Defendants and Respondents

ALL OTHER PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION

BANK OF AMERICA N.A.

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION (USA)

LASALLE BANK MIDWEST N.A.

MC CARTHY AND HOLTHUS LLP

RECON TRUST COMPANY N.A.

ANY ALL OTHER PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING

MCGUIREWOODS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

POWELL DAVID ESQ.

WOO SARAH J. ESQ.

FRENCH JAMES H. ESQ.

WOO SARAH J

HEHIR ELIZABETH CHRISTINE

GEKKER ELENA O.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF COSTS A...)

3/22/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF COSTS A...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 02/11/2021

2/11/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 02/11/2021

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

9/9/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

10/7/2019: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Memorandum of Costs (Summary) - MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) AMENDED

11/26/2019: Memorandum of Costs (Summary) - MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) AMENDED

Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103 - APPEAL - NTC DESIGNATING RECORD OF APPEAL APP-003/010/103 CLERK'S

12/5/2019: Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103 - APPEAL - NTC DESIGNATING RECORD OF APPEAL APP-003/010/103 CLERK'S

Reply - REPLY RE MOTION FOR ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

10/21/2020: Reply - REPLY RE MOTION FOR ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

Notice - NOTICE OF COURT SUA SPONTE ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AND/OR TAX COSTS

11/16/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF COURT SUA SPONTE ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AND/OR TAX COSTS

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND ALL RELATED DATES

4/3/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND ALL RELATED DATES

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER AFTER HEARING (SUPERIOR COURT)

8/12/2014: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER AFTER HEARING (SUPERIOR COURT)

NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9/20/2016: NOTICE OF CONTINUED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

11/22/2016: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

PLAINTIFF MARIA MEJIA'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

2/8/2017: PLAINTIFF MARIA MEJIA'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

2/8/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -

7/18/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -

234 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/22/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Strike (Defendants' Memorandum of Costs and, Alternatively, Striking and Taxing Costs;) - Not Held - Clerical Error

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Strike (Defendants' Memorandum of Costs and, Alternatively, Striking and Taxing Costs;) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Strike Defendants' Memorandum of Costs a...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2021
  • DocketOrder (re: Motion to Strike Defendants' Memoranda of Costs and, Alternatively, Striking and Taxing Costs); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Strike (Defendants' Memorandum of Costs and, Alternatively, Striking and Taxing Costs;) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2021
  • Docketat 1:34 PM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 03/16/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ((Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2021
  • DocketNotice (re: Continuance of February 24, 2021 Hearing on Motion to Strike/Tax Costs to March 17, 2021); Filed by Maria J. Mejia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Strike (Defendants' Memorandum of Costs and, Alternatively, Striking and Taxing Costs;) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
445 More Docket Entries
  • 05/09/2013
  • DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER AFTER HEARING (SUPERIOR COURT)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2013
  • DocketNOTICE ON HEARING ABOUT COURT FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2013
  • DocketNotice on Hearing About Court Fees; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2013
  • DocketRequest for Hearing About Court Fee Waiver Order (Superior Court); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2013
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2013
  • DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2013
  • DocketVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. QUIET TITLE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2013
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Maria J. Mejia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2013
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2013
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Maria J. Mejia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC503092    Hearing Date: March 22, 2021    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – CENTRAL District

Department 53

maria j. mejia ;

Plaintiff,

vs.

Bank of america corporation , et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC503092

Hearing Date:

March 22, 2021

Time:

10:00 a.m.

[Tentative] Order RE:

motion for order striking defendants’ memoranda of costs and, alternatively, striking and taxing costs

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Maria J. Mejia

RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants Bank of America, N.A., and ReconTrust Company, N.A.

Motion for Order Striking Defendants’ Memoranda of Costs and, Alternatively, Striking and Taxing Costs

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

Background

Plaintiff Maria J. Mejia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on March 15, 2013, against defendants Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, ReconTrust Company, N.A., HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), LaSalle Bank Midwest, N.A., and McCarthy and Holthus, LLP. The operative Third Amended Complaint was filed on April 21, 2017, asserting causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) intentional fraud and deceit, (3) negligent misrepresentation, and (4) unfair business practices.

On September 24, 2019, the court granted defendants Bank of America, N.A. and ReconTrust Company, N.A.’s (“Defendants”) motion for summary judgment on the Third Amended Complaint. On November 25, 2019, Defendants filed a Memorandum of Costs seeking costs in the total amount of $4,861.77, consisting of $2,465 in filing and motion fees, $780.85 in court report fees, and $1,615.92 in “other” costs, but the Memorandum of Costs was only a summary and did not include a worksheet detailing the costs claimed by Defendants. (Memorandum of Costs, filed November 25, 2019.) On November 26, 2019, Defendants filed an “Amended” Memorandum of Costs, which included a worksheet detailing the costs claimed by Defendants. (Amended Memorandum of Costs, filed November 26, 2019.)

Plaintiff now moves to strike Defendants’ November 25, 2019, and November 26, 2019 memoranda of costs in their entirety, or alternatively, to tax the costs award sought by Defendants. Defendants oppose the motion.

Legal Standard

A prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs except as otherwise expressly provided by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032, subds. (a)(4), (b), 1033.5.) Costs recoverable under section 1032 are limited to those that are both (1) reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and (2) reasonable in amount. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1033.5, subds. (c)(2), (3).) Costs “merely convenient or beneficial” to the preparation of a case are disallowed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2); see Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 [expenses for attorney meals incurred while attending local depositions not “reasonably necessary”].)

“A ‘verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of [the] propriety’ of the items listed on it, and the burden is on the party challenging these costs to demonstrate that they were not reasonable or necessary.” (Adams v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1486-1487 [italics and brackets omitted].) “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.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn., supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 774.) Costs otherwise allowable as a matter of right may be disallowed if the court determines they were not reasonably necessary, and the court has power to reduce the amount of any cost item to an amount that is reasonable. (See Perko's Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 245 [finding that “the intent and effect of section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(2) is to authorize a trial court to disallow recovery of costs, including filing fees, when it determines the costs were incurred unnecessarily”].)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants’ November 25, 2019, and November 26, 2019 memoranda of costs in their entirety.

First, Plaintiff contends that Defendants were not the prevailing parties because the court did not rule on any of Plaintiff’s causes of action, there was no trial, and Defendants recovered less than Plaintiff’s section 998 offer to Defendants. The court disagrees. As discussed above, the court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. On October 28, 2019, the court entered judgment in this action in favor of Defendants against Plaintiff. (Judgment, filed October 28, 2019.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (a)(4) defines “prevailing party” for purposes of recovering costs to include “a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.” The court therefore finds that Defendants are prevailing parties in this action and are entitled to recover their costs in this action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b) [“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.”].)

Second, Plaintiff contends that Defendants failed to timely file their memoranda of costs because they were not filed within the 15-day time period required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk . . . 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.”

On October 28, 2019, the court entered judgment in favor of Defendants and ordered Defendants to give notice of entry of judgment. (Minute Order, filed October 28, 2019.) On November 4, 2019, Defendants filed a Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order, and the proof of service attached to the notice shows that Defendants served the notice of entry of judgment on Plaintiff by U.S. mail on November 4, 2019. On November 25, 2019 (i.e., 21 days after November 4, 2019), Defendants filed their first memorandum of costs. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ memorandum of costs is therefore untimely by 6 days under rule 3.1700.

In their opposition to the motion, Defendants contend that their memorandum of costs was timely filed because it was served and filed 15 days, plus the five-day extension for mailing under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision (a), after service of the notice of entry of judgment.[1] Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision (a), provides, in relevant part: “In the case of service by mail, . . . [s]ervice is complete at the time of the deposit, but any period of notice and any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended five calendar days, upon service by mail, if the place of address and the place of mailing is within the State of California[.] . . . . This extension applies in the absence of a specific exception provided for by this section or other statute or rule of court.” Defendants argue that their memorandum of costs is therefore timely under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700, and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision (a), because Defendants filed and served their memorandum of costs 15 days (plus the five-day extension for mailing under section 1013, subdivision (a), and the one-day extension under sections 10 and 12a because the 20th day fell on a Sunday) after the November 4, 2019 service of the notice of entry of judgment.

In Nevis Homes LLC v. CW Roofing, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 353, 357-358, the prevailing defendant filed a memorandum of costs 19 days after the plaintiff dismissed its complaint and mailed written notice of entry of dismissal. The Court of Appeal held the memorandum of costs was timely: “No statute or rule of court ‘specifically’ exempts cost memoranda from the five-day mailing extension in section 1013, subdivision (a). Moreover, section 1013, subdivision (a), specifies the items to which the extension does not apply. A memorandum of costs is not among those exceptions. Nor does rule 3.1700 specifically exempt a cost memorandum from the time extension provided by section 1013, subdivision (a) . . . . We are not authorized to rewrite the plain language of a statute to conform to an assumed intent that does not appear from the language.” (Id. at p. 357.)

But in Westrec Marina Management, Inc. v. Jardine Ins. Brokers Orange County, Inc. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1042, and Kahn v. The Dewey Group (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 227, the Court of Appeal considered whether the extensions of time provided by the Code of Civil Procedure are available only to the party on whom a notice of entry of judgment is served or whether the extensions of time are also available to the party who served the notice.

In Westrec, the Court of Appeal considered whether section 1013, subdivision (a) extended a trial court’s time to grant a motion for new trial where notice of entry of judgment was served by mail. (Westrec, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 1047.) The Court of Appeal held that section 1013 did not extend the trial court’s time to act because section 1013 provides an extension only “to the person served by mail.” (Id. at p. 1048.) The Court of Appeal found that the relevant statutory language was ambiguous, and that the legislative history supported the conclusion that the extension of time provided by section 1013 applied only to the person being served. (Id. at p. 1049.)

In Khan, the Court of Appeal held that a memorandum of costs filed 17 days after electronic service of a notice of entry of judgment was timely under the two-court-day extension provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6. (Khan, supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at pp. 236-237.) The Court of Appeal considered Westrec and stated that Westrec did not control the court’s analysis because the question before the court in Khan was section 1010.6, not section 1013. (Id. at p. 236.) However, the Court of Appeal also explained that it disagreed with the Westrec court’s interpretation of section 1013: “Moreover, we do not agree with the Westrec court that the language of either section 1013 or section 1010.6 is ambiguous or is reasonably susceptible of that court’s interpretation. As we have said, section 1010.6, subdivision (a)(4) -- like section 1013, subdivision (a) -- extends by a specified number of days ‘any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period . . . after the service of the document’ by electronic means. (Italics added.) By its plain language, therefore, the statute does not limit the extension to the party on whom a document is served.” (Ibid.)

The court acknowledges the Kahn Court disagreed with the Westrec Court on the issue of whether Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision (a), provides an extension of time only to the party on whom a notice of entry of judgment is served or whether the extension of time is also available to the party who served the notice. However, although the Kahn Court expressly disagreed with the Westrec Court’s interpretation of section 1013, subdivision (a) to apply its five-day extension for service by mail only to the party served, Kahn does not hold that section 1013, subdivision (a) limits the time extension for service by mail only to the party on whom a document is served. Instead, Kahn held that a memorandum of costs filed 17 days after electronic service of a notice of entry of judgment was timely under section 1010.6.

Although the court finds the reasoning of the Kahn Court in interpreting the identical language in both statutes is sound and persuasive, this court is bound to follow the holding in Westrec because it interpreted the same statute at issue here – Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision (a). It is not this court’s role to change, but instead to follow, existing law as stated by the California Court of Appeal. In Westrec, the Court of Appeal held that the extension of time under section 1013, subdivision (a), applies only to the party served. (Westrec, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1049.) The court therefore follows Westrec and finds that Defendants failed to timely file their memorandum of costs within the 15-day time period required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700 because Defendants served the notice of entry of judgment on Plaintiff, the notice of entry of judgment was not served on Defendants, and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision (a) therefore does not provide Defendants the 5-day extension of time for service by mail. Thus, because (1) the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment was November 4, 2019, and (2) Defendants filed their memoranda of costs on November 25, 2019 and November 26, 2019, respectively, Defendants’ memoranda of costs were untimely filed because they were not filed within 15 days after the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1).)

For the reasons set forth above, the court grants Plaintiff’s request to strike Defendants’ November 25, 2019, and November 26, 2019 memoranda of costs in their entirety.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the court grants plaintiff Maria J. Mejia’s motion to strike defendants Bank of America, N.A. and ReconsTrust Company, N.A.’s memoranda of costs, filed November 25, 2019, and November 26, 2019. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(1).)

The court orders plaintiff Maria J. Mejia to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 22, 2021

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] Because the 20th day after service of the notice of entry of judgment fell on Sunday, November 24, 2019, filing the memorandum of costs on Monday, November 25, 2019, would be timely if Defendants were entitled to the five-day extension for service of the notice by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision (a). (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 10, 12a.)

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where MCGUIREWOODS LLP is a litigant

Latest cases where HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION USA A DISSOLVED COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where RECON TRUST COMPANY N.A. is a litigant

Latest cases where LaSalle Bank, N.A is a litigant