Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/03/2016 at 23:13:41 (UTC).

PASADENA REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY VS SUSAN KINNEY ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/04/2014 PASADENA REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against SUSAN KINNEY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JAMES C. CHALFANT and ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2912

  • Filing Date:

    11/04/2014

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JAMES C. CHALFANT

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

PASADENA REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY

FULL COUNT BASEBALL ACADEMY LLC - ROE 11

360 ELITE PERFORMANCE SPORTS

CAPSTONE COLLEGES LLC

CROSSFIT FTF LLC

FTF FITNESS - DBA

WHISK GLUTEN-FREE BAKERY LLC

ROES 1-20 INCLUSIVE

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

1222 NORTH FAIR OAKS LLC

DOES 1 TO 100

KINNEY GEORGE

KINNEY SUSAN

Defendant and Respondent

DOES 1 TO 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

GRAJEWSKI WAYNE S. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

DECLARATION OF COURTNEY TRUJILLO IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

11/5/2014: DECLARATION OF COURTNEY TRUJILLO IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

11/5/2014: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

11/5/2014: TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/10/2014: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

DECLARATION OF KENNETH BERTON

12/2/2014: DECLARATION OF KENNETH BERTON

DECLARATION OF GREGORY ROBINSON

12/2/2014: DECLARATION OF GREGORY ROBINSON

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

12/9/2014: PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

SUMMONS

12/9/2014: SUMMONS

Minute Order

12/16/2014: Minute Order

THE KINNEYS' OPPOSITION TO PRC'S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE CROSS-COMPLAINT

3/30/2015: THE KINNEYS' OPPOSITION TO PRC'S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE CROSS-COMPLAINT

THE KINNEYS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN CONNECTION WITH ITS OPPOSITION TO PRC'S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE CROSS-COMPLAINT

3/30/2015: THE KINNEYS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN CONNECTION WITH ITS OPPOSITION TO PRC'S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE CROSS-COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF RULING RE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, AND NOTICE OF TRIAL

4/14/2015: NOTICE OF RULING RE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, AND NOTICE OF TRIAL

PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

11/4/2015: PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

11/4/2015: PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

1/15/2016: PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 OF THE KINNEY DEFENDANTS TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE TESTIMONY OR REFERERICE, ETC.

2/3/2016: MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 OF THE KINNEY DEFENDANTS TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE TESTIMONY OR REFERERICE, ETC.

Minute Order

2/23/2016: Minute Order

Minute Order

5/31/2016: Minute Order

90 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/25/2016
  • Order (GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2016
  • Ex-Parte Application (PASADENA REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY'S EX PARTE APLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF NATHAN D. MEYER ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2016
  • Miscellaneous-Other (AMENDED TRANSMISSION OF PROPOSED ORDER ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2016
  • Notice of Ruling (RE THE COURT'S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S PRC'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT 1222 NORTH FAIR OAKS, LLC ) Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2016
  • Motion in Limine (NO. 1 - TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT PRC'S TENANTS HAVE ENGAGED IN PROHIBITED USES ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2016
  • Motion in Limine (NO. 2 - OF THE KINNEY DEFENDANTS TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY OR REFERENCE TO PARCEL 1 PURPORTEDLY BEING "LANDLOCKED" OR "INACCESSIBLE" WHEN THE CC&Rs EXPIRE) Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2016
  • Motion in Limine (NO. 1 - OF THE KINNEY DEFENDANTS TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY AND/OR ARGUMENT RE THE KINNEY DEFENDANTS' PURPORTD BREACH OF CONTRACT ) Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2016
  • Motion in Limine (NO. 3 - OF THE KINNEY DEFENDANTS TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE TESTIMONY OR ARGUMENT THAT PARCELS 1 AND 3 PURPORTEDLY WILL REQUIRE PARKING UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE CC&RS) Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2016
  • Declaration (OF KAREN L. HALLOCK, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MIL NOS. 1-3, AND DEFENDANTS' COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 3.57 RE: MEETING AND CONFERRING ABOUT THE MOTIONS ) Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2016
  • Declaration (OF WAYNE S. GRAJEWSKI, ESQ. SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO PLTFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF THE PMQ OF DEFENDANT 1222 NORTH FAIR OAKS, LLC) Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
69 More Docket Entries
  • 11/17/2014
  • Proof-Service/Summons (RE: SUMMONS ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2014
  • Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2014
  • Ex-parte Request for Order Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2014
  • Stip & Order-use CSR Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2014
  • Declaration (of Shields in support of ex parte ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2014
  • Declaration (of Trujillo in support of ex parte ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2014
  • Declaration (of Rips in support of ex parte ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2014
  • Order (granting ex parte for tro and setting osc re p.i. ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2014
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2014
  • Order (RULING overruling demurrer as to fist and second causes of action; denying motion to strike first cause of action ) Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC562912    Hearing Date: October 14, 2020    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ON APPEAL

On May 23, 2016, Pasadena Redevelopment Company (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Susan Kinney, George Kinney, and 1222 North Fair Oaks, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a stipulation of settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. On May 31, 2016, the Court dismissed the action and retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

On August 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the settlement agreement. On November 16, 2018, the Court denied the motion. Plaintiff appealed, and on April 30, 2020, the Court of Appeal affirmed, agreeing that the settlement agreement was too uncertain to be enforced under section 664.6. The Court of Appeal awarded Defendants their costs on appeal.

On August 26, 2020, Defendants filed this motion for attorney fees on appeal. Attorney fees may be awarded to a prevailing party when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032, 1033.5, subd. (a)(10); Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).) Defendants contend that they are entitled to attorney fees under the 1986 “Form of Declaration of Establishment of Easements and Covenants Regarding Maintenance and Operations” (“CC&Rs”). (Motion at pp. 3, 5.) The 1986 CC&Rs permit attorney fees for a prevailing party on an action “by reason of the alleged breach or violation of any covenant, term or obligation hereof, or for the interpretation or enforcement of any provision hereof, or otherwise arising out of this agreement.” (Ex. E, § 14.12.) Defendants state that the Court’s January 20, 2016 order noted that the parties agreed to be bound by the old CC&Rs. (Motion at p. 5.) Defendants request $27,819.95 in attorney fees on appeal. (Id. at p. 7.)

Plaintiff argues that the fee-shifting provision upon which Defendants rely is not part of the settlement agreement that was the subject of the Section 664.6 motion and the appeal. (Opposition at p. 3.) The settlement agreement stated that the parties would “roughly conform to 3/20/16 CC&Rs, subject to modifications discussed at [mandatory settlement conference] on 3/21/16.” Even if the 1986 CC&Rs remained in effect, they were not expressly part of the agreement that constituted the action on appeal.

The attorney fee provision in the 1986 CC&Rs awards fees to the prevailing party “in an action or proceeding . . . by reason of the alleged breach or violation of any covenant, term or obligation hereof, or for the interpretation or enforcement of any provision hereof, or otherwise arising out of this agreement.” The Section 664.6 motion and appeal was not a proceeding based on an alleged breach or violation of the 1986 CC&Rs; it was based on a request to enforce the settlement agreement to implement new CC&Rs. Although Plaintiff’s underlying complaint involved the 1986 CC&Rs, neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeal was called upon to interpret the terms of the 1986 CC&Rs to rule on the motion to enforce settlement agreement or in the appeal. The parties had previously dismissed the underlying complaint which concerned the 1986 CC&Rs, so that proceeding was completed. The Section 664.6 motion and appeal therefore arose out of the settlement agreement, not the old CC&Rs that was the subject of the earlier dismissed proceeding. Moreover, in dismissing the underlying action the parties agreed that “[e]ach party will bear its own court costs and attorney fees.” Therefore, the old CC&Rs do not provide a contractual basis for attorney fees.

Accordingly, the motion for attorney fees on appeal is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PASADENA REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GRAJEWSKI WAYNE S