This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/02/2019 at 00:10:04 (UTC).

FRANCISCO CORONA, ET AL. VS. RAMON BUENO

Case Summary

On 07/31/2017 FRANCISCO CORONA, filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against RAMON BUENO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Compton Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MAURICE A. LEITER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8862

  • Filing Date:

    07/31/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MAURICE A. LEITER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

CORONA FRANCISCO

CORONA KIMBERLY

Defendants

BUENO PROPERTIES L.L.C.

BUENO RAMON

GREEN APPLE ESCROW INC.

PACIFIC ESCROW INC.

HERNANDEZ GEORGINA

HERNANDEZ HUGO

VELASQUEZ YAXKIN "RONY" AKA RONY VELASQUEZ

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KAREY BRUCE LOREN

Defendant Attorneys

LANPHERE MICHAEL A.

KERN MARLENE ELISABETH

DOLAN ROBERT TRACEY

DIERINGER JON ANTHONY

 

Court Documents

Complaint

7/31/2017: Complaint

Notice of Case Management Conference

7/31/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference

Summons

7/31/2017: Summons

Civil Case Cover Sheet

7/31/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Unknown

8/23/2017: Unknown

Unknown

8/23/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/23/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/23/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/24/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/26/2017: Unknown

Unknown

11/27/2017: Unknown

Unknown

11/27/2017: Unknown

Unknown

12/12/2017: Unknown

Unknown

12/21/2017: Unknown

Case Management Statement

12/28/2017: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

12/29/2017: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

1/4/2018: Minute Order

Case Management Statement

1/4/2018: Case Management Statement

67 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/28/2019
  • DocketNotice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by PACIFIC ESCROW INC. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Sanctions Against Plaintiff Counsel for Failure to Appear on November 15, 2018) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by BUENO PROPERTIES, L.L.C. (Defendant); RAMON BUENO (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by RAMON BUENO (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/02/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by FRANCISCO CORONA (Plaintiff); KIMBERLY CORONA (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/02/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY BRUCE LOREN KAREY's DECLARTORY RESPONSE TO THE COURT's OSC RE SANCTIONS RE PRIOR C.M.C. ON 11-16-2018.); Filed by FRANCISCO CORONA (Plaintiff); KIMBERLY CORONA (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • DocketDeclaration of Michael A. Lanphere in Support of Monetary Sanctions Against the Plaintiffs; Filed by PACIFIC ESCROW INC. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
76 More Docket Entries
  • 10/26/2017
  • DocketAnswer to First Amended Complaint; Filed by YAXKIN "RONY" VELASQUEZ (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by RAMON BUENO (Defendant); BUENO PROPERTIES, L.L.C. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/23/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by GREEN APPLE ESCROW, INC. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/23/2017
  • DocketAnswer to First Amended Complaint; Filed by PACIFIC ESCROW INC. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/23/2017
  • DocketSummons Issued; Filed by FRANCISCO CORONA (Plaintiff); KIMBERLY CORONA (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/23/2017
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by FRANCISCO CORONA (Plaintiff); KIMBERLY CORONA (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/31/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/31/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/31/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by FRANCISCO CORONA (Plaintiff); KIMBERLY CORONA (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/31/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by FRANCISCO CORONA (Plaintiff); KIMBERLY CORONA (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****8862 Hearing Date: August 9, 2022 Dept: A

****8862 CORONA, et al. v. BUENO, et al.

Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

The Third Amended Complaint, filed on October 18, 2018, alleges that Plaintiffs purchased residential real property from Defendants, Ramon Bueno and Bueno Properties, LLC (“Sellers”). Sellers cancelled the escrow account opened with Defendant, Pacific Escrow, Inc. (“Pacific”) upon Sellers’ receipt of an appraisal that was higher than the purchase price. Sellers opened another escrow and sold the property to other buyers. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty.

On May 16, 2022, the court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants, Ramon Bueno (“Bueno”) and Yaxkin “Rony” Velasquez, when Plaintiffs failed to appear at trial. Defendant, Ramon Bueno, moves for an award of attorney’s fees as a prevailing party.

Defendant’s motion, filed on July 11, 2022, asserts that the parties’ sale contract included a provision for attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. Plaintiffs failed to appear at trial, as such, the action was dismissed as against Bueno and others.

A fee motion must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal, which is 60 days. Cal Rules of Court Rule 3.1702 subd. (b)(1), and 8.104. The clerk mailed the Notice of Dismissal on May 16, 2022, therefore, the 60-day period (increased by five calendar days for service of the notice by mail) expired on July 20, 2022. Therefore, this motion was timely filed on July 11, 2022.

A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs as a matter of right. Code Civ. Proc., 1032, subd. (a)(4), (b).) Attorney’s fees are recoverable as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law. Code Civ. Proc., 1033.5, subd. (a)(10). The prevailing party in an action based on contract is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in an amount to be determined by the court. Civ. Code, 1717. A prevailing party includes "a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered.” Code Civ. Proc., 1032(a)(4). The purchase contract includes a provision permitting recovery of attorney’s fees to the prevailing buyer or seller. Motion, Ex. A, page 9, 25.

Awarding attorney’s fees “is a matter in the sound discretion of the trial court and absent a manifest abuse of discretion the determination of the trial court will not be disturbed.” Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 67 Cal.App.3d 677, 682. In determining a reasonable fee, the court considers factors including the nature of the litigation; its difficulty; the amount involved; the skill required and the skill employed in handling the litigation; the attention given; the success of the attorney's efforts; the attorney’s learning, age, and experience in the particular type of work demanded; the intricacies and importance of the litigation; the labor and necessity for skilled legal training and ability in trying the cause, and the time consumed." Hadley at 682.

The court begins with the “lodestar” which is the number of hours reasonably spent multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 1096.The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work. Id. The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on the factors specific to the case, in order to determine the fair market value for the legal services provided. Id.

Defense counsel spent hours litigating this matter for nearly five years from the date the action was commenced on July 31, 2017, through the date of dismissal on May 16, 2022. Declaration of Marlene Kern, Ex. B. Defense counsel filed three demurrers in this action and propounded discovery. The court finds that the time spent litigating this matter as reflected by defense counsel’s billing records is reasonable. Defendant also requests fees incurred to prepare this motion. The court finds that two hours to prepare this motion is reasonable at Defendant’s hourly rate of $375.00. The court’s calculation of attorney’s fees for professional services as reflected in the Defendant’s billing statements is shown below.

Invoice 5/13/22

$11,452.50

Invoice 8/7/18

3,190.00

Invoice 1/20/18

4,690.00

Fee Motion

750.00

Total

$20,082.50

The court did not include expenses because Defendant’s recoverable costs from a non-prevailing party are governed by Code of Civil Procedure 1033.5. A prevailing party who claims costs “must” file and serve a Memorandum of Costs within 15 days after service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal. Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700 subd. (a)(1). The time provisions, “while not jurisdictional, are mandatory." Hydratec, Inc. v. Sun Valley 260 Orchard & Vineyard Co. (1990) 223 Cal. App. 3d 924, 929. Failure to present a cost bill results in a waiver of the right to costs. Id. The 15th day (increased by five days for mailing of the clerk’s notice) expired on June 5, 2022. The court’s file does not reflect that Defendant filed a Memorandum of Costs. Accordingly, Defendant waived his right to recover costs.

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees in the reduced amount of $20,082.50.



Case Number: ****8862 Hearing Date: May 3, 2022 Dept: A

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT

FRANCISCO CORONA and KIMBERLY CORONA,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

RAMON BUENO; BUENO PROPERTIES, LLC; PACIFIC ESCROW, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: ****8862

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE BY DEFENDANT, PACIFIC ESCROW, INC.

Dept. A

DATE: Tuesday, May 3, 2022

TIME: 8:30 A.M.

COMPLAINT FILED: July 31, 2017

TRIAL DATE: May 16, 2022

I. BACKGROUND

The Third Amended Complaint, filed on October 18, 2018, alleges that Plaintiffs purchased residential real property from Defendants, Ramon Bueno and Bueno Properties, LLC (“Sellers”). Sellers attempted to cancel the escrow account opened with Defendant, Pacific Escrow, Inc. (“Pacific”) upon Sellers’ receipt of an appraisal that was higher than the purchase price. Plaintiffs demanded specific performance. The Sellers opened another escrow with Green Apple Escrow, Inc. (“Green Apple”), to sell the same property to other buyers. Plaintiffs allege Pacific instructed Green Apple to go forward with the second escrow, knowing that Plaintiffs’ escrow account remained open. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty.

On March 18, 2021, the court granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel. Plaintiffs are now self-represented.

II. MOTION TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANT, PACIFIC ESCROW, INC., FILED ON MARCH 15, 2022.

Defendant moves for discretionary dismissal of the action based on Plaintiffs’ failure to bring the case to trial within three years of commencement or within two years if otherwise prescribed by Judicial Council rule. Plaintiffs’ former counsel was not prepared for mediation and failed to appear for a number of court hearings. Further delay has resulted since Plaintiffs' counsel withdrew as counsel of record. More than four years have passed since the complaint was filed. Plaintiffs have failed to continue to prepare for the Final Status Conference and to submit pre-trial documents.

Defendant served the motion on Plaintiffs and the Seller Defendants. However, no opposition has been filed.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

The motion is timely filed and served within 45 days before the hearing. CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1342. The court has discretion to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute if appropriate under the circumstances of the case. Code Civ. Proc., 583.410. CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1340. The court has discretion to dismiss a case for failure to bring the action to trial within three years after the action is commenced or within two years if the Judicial Council so prescribes because of the condition of the calendar. Code Civ. Proc., 583.420. Additionally, the court has discretion to require that the parties comply with such terms that appear to effectuate substantial justice as a condition of granting or denying the motion to dismiss. Code Civ. Proc., 583.430.

The court’s docket reflects that Plaintiffs filed this action on July 31, 2017. Therefore, the two-year period expired on July 31, 2019, and the three-year period expired on July 31, 2020. Trial is currently scheduled for May 16, 2022. The court’s docket reflects that Plaintiffs' counsel did not appear at the first Case Management Conference set for November 14, 2018.

Between that date through January 7, 2021, when Plaintiffs' counsel filed the Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel, the court continued the Case Management and Final Status Conferences. The court continued Plaintiffs' counsel’s motion to be relieved

until March 18, 2021, at which time the motion was granted. The court continued the Case Management Conference again on May 17, 2021, and continued the Trial Setting Conference on January 11, 2022. The court again continued the Final Status Conference on April 18, 2022. Finally, the trial date, originally set for December 9, 2019 has been continued three times. Plaintiffs did not oppose this motion.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, in view of the foregoing and because the court’s docket does not reflect that Plaintiffs have advanced the case in the four years and nine months since the action was filed, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Code Civ. Proc., 583.420.

Dated: Tuesday, May 3, 2022

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****8862    Hearing Date: March 18, 2021    Dept: A

Corona v. Bueno

The unopposed Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiffs, Francis Corona and Kimberly Corona, is GRANTED. Counsel has complied with California Rules of Court 3.1362. The order is effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the order on the Plaintiffs. Until then, counsel remains counsel of record.

On 2/18/21, the court continued this hearing to 3/18/21, to permit the Plaintiffs and their counsel to meet and confer to resolve the issues. In a supplemental declaration filed 3/1/21, counsel attests that he has contacted Plaintiff, Kimberly Corona, who resides with her father, Plaintiff, Francis Corona, on three occasions and left voicemail. Plaintiffs do not cooperate.

Counsel is ordered to submit a proposed order forthwith.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.



Case Number: ****8862    Hearing Date: February 18, 2021    Dept: A

Corona v. Bueno ****8862

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is CONTINUED to April 6, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The court finds that counsel has failed to provide sufficient evidence that counsel complied with California Rule of Court Rule 3.1362. Counsel’s declaration states that Plaintiff’s address “is the mailing address we have on file and our mail has been successfully delivered.” It is unclear, however, whether counsel had determined that mail was successfully delivered to that address within the past 30 days. Counsel has also not provided proof that the moving papers were served on other parties to the litigation. Finally, counsel has failed to file a proposed order (MC-053).

The court continues the motion so that these deficiencies may be corrected.

Moving party is ordered to give notice. Notice of the new hearing date must be provided to Plaintiff in the manner required under Rule 1.362.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Pacific Escrow, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer KAREY BRUCE LOREN