This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/01/2019 at 03:48:33 (UTC).

GREGORIO PINA, ET AL VS ROSA MORA

Case Summary

On 05/30/2017 GREGORIO PINA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ROSA MORA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ROBERT A. MCSORLEY, RANDOLPH ROGERS, RANDOLPH A. ROGERS and BRIAN C. YEP. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7157

  • Filing Date:

    05/30/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ROBERT A. MCSORLEY

RANDOLPH ROGERS

RANDOLPH A. ROGERS

BRIAN C. YEP

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

PINA GREGORIO

PINA ANA

Defendants

MORA ROSA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

FOWLER JASON

FOWLER JASON PAUL

WILLIAMS DYLAN E

Defendant Attorneys

MACDONALD SCOTT L.

ARIAS CARL B.

MACDONALD SCOTT LEE

 

Court Documents

Request for Judicial Notice

12/21/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Reply

1/7/2019: Reply

Reply

1/7/2019: Reply

Minute Order

1/15/2019: Minute Order

Reply

4/4/2019: Reply

Objection

4/9/2019: Objection

Declaration

4/9/2019: Declaration

Notice

4/9/2019: Notice

Notice

4/9/2019: Notice

Minute Order

4/11/2019: Minute Order

Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

4/23/2019: Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

Request for Judicial Notice

5/21/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

5/21/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Request for Judicial Notice

5/29/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

SECOND AMENDED GENERAL ORDER

10/24/2016: SECOND AMENDED GENERAL ORDER

Unknown

12/4/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

3/27/2018: Minute Order

ORDER

4/26/2018: ORDER

107 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/29/2019
  • Separate Statement (in support of plaintiffs' motion to compel further responses by defendant County of Los Angeles to request for admissions set two); Filed by Gregorio Pina (Plaintiff); Ana Pina (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Separate Statement (in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses by Defendant County of Los Angeles to Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents, Set Two); Filed by Gregorio Pina (Plaintiff); Ana Pina (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Motion to Compel (Defendant County of Los Angeles to provide Further Verified Responses to Demands for Production of Documents, Set Two); Filed by Gregorio Pina (Plaintiff); Ana Pina (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Separate Statement (in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses by Defendant Cuunty of Los Angeles to Special Interrogatories, Set Two); Filed by Gregorio Pina (Plaintiff); Ana Pina (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Motion to Compel (Defendant County of Los angeles to provide Further Verified esponses to Plaintiffs Specil Interrogatories, Set Two); Filed by Gregorio Pina (Plaintiff); Ana Pina (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Separate Statement (in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Responses b Defendant County of Los Angeles to form Interrogatories, Set Two); Filed by Gregorio Pina (Plaintiff); Ana Pina (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Motion to Compel (Defendant County of Los Angeles to Provide Further Verified Responses to Plaintiffs' Form Interrogatories, Set Two); Filed by Gregorio Pina (Plaintiff); Ana Pina (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Motion to Compel (Defendant County of Los Angeles to Provide Further Verified Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions, Set Three); Filed by Gregorio Pina (Plaintiff); Ana Pina (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Motion to Compel (TO COMPEL DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO PROVIDE FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS? REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO); Filed by Gregorio Pina (Plaintiff); Ana Pina (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Separate Statement (in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Responses by Defendant County of Los angeles to Request for Admissions, Set Three); Filed by Gregorio Pina (Plaintiff); Ana Pina (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
155 More Docket Entries
  • 09/19/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Gregorio Pina (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2017
  • COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2017
  • CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2017
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2017
  • Notice of Case Assignment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2016
  • SECOND AMENDED GENERAL ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: MC027157    Hearing Date: October 29, 2019    Dept: A15

Christopher v. Kish

1. Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Mitchell Christopher’s motion to tax costs is DENIED as moot. Sanctions are DENIED. Defendant Trevor Kish to give notice.

2. Background

This breach of contract action arose from allegations that Defendant David Kish failed to follow through with an agreement the parties entered into on July 20, 2017 for Defendant to sell his home located at 2055 Kettering Street, Lancaster, California to Plaintiff Mitchell Christopher for the sum of $180,000.00.

On October 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Complaint against Defendant, alleging two causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract; and (2) Specific Performance. Defendant, proceeding pro per, filed his Answer to the Complaint on November 29, 2017.

This action came on for non-jury trial on July 26, 2019, with judgment entered on that date, whereby the Court found in favor of Defendant on the grounds that he never authorized the sale and is not in possession of the Ernest Money Deposit. Defendant was entitled to recover costs in the Court’s ruling.

On September 04, 2019, Defendant filed a memorandum of costs for the amount of $510.00. On September 12, Defendant filed a notice of withdrawal of his memorandum of costs. On September 16, 2019, Plaintiff then filed the instant motion to tax costs. Defendant filed opposition on October 10, 2019, and Plaintiff filed a reply on October 17, 2019.

3. Analysis

     a. Violation of November 5, 2018 General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil

Counsel for Defendant has failed to provide the Court with courtesy copies of the instant motions. The Court reminds counsel of the General Order of November 05, 2018, mandating attorneys to provide a paper courtesy copy of their motions. Courtesy copies of further filings shall be provided directly to Dept. A-15.

     b. Motion to Tax Costs

The right to recover costs is purely statutory. (Murillo v. Fletwood Enters., Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 985, 989.) “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b).)

After judgment is entered, the 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, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a).) “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 this case.” (Ibid.)

In turn, the losing party may file a motion to strike or tax costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b).) Procedurally, “[a]ny notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum.” (Ibid.) “Unless the objection is made to the entire cost memorandum, the motion to strike or tax costs must refer to each item objected to by the same number and appear in the same order as the corresponding cost item claimed on the memorandum of costs and must state why the item is objectionable.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(2).) “Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2).)

     c. Failure to Substitute Counsel

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff has argued in his reply that Defendant’s opposition motion must be stricken because he is now being represented by counsel, when before he was a pro per litigant in this action and failed to file for a substitution of counsel.

“The main purpose of a substitution of attorneys is that both the court and opposing counsel may know that they are dealing with an attorney who has power to bind the party he purports to represent.” (Carrara v. Carrara (1953) 121 Cal.App.2d 59, 62.) “[T]he attorney's actual authority bears more significance than the substitution document recording it.” (Baker v. Boxx (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1303, 1310.) “Where the actual authority of the new or different attorney appears, courts regularly excuse the absence of record of a formal substitution and validate the attorney's acts, particularly where the adverse party has not been misled or otherwise prejudiced.” (Baker, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1309, referencing Crocker National Bank v. O'Donnell (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 264, 268–269, [terming failure to file substitution a “technical objection”]; and Carrara v. Carrara (1953) 121 Cal.App.2d 59, 62, 262 P.2d 591 [irregularity in substitution does not oust jurisdiction].)

While Plaintiff is correct that there is absent in the court record any formal substitution of attorney by Defendant showing that he is now being represented by counsel Marla Martinez, who has represented Defendant in filing his memorandum of costs, the notice of withdrawal, and the opposition to the motion to tax costs. However, this procedural error by Defendant in failing to file a formal substitution of attorney does not warrant striking his opposition, where Plaintiff here has made no showing of prejudice. (See Baker, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1305 [holding that a pleading which is filed and served by a new attorney is not void and ineffective to fulfill service of process requirements even though the new attorney has not first filed and served a formal substitution in the absence of prejudice].)

     d. Application

The Court records indicates that, where Defendant filed a memorandum of costs on September 04, 2019, he subsequently filed a notice of withdrawal of that memorandum of costs on September 12, 2019. Plaintiff then filed the instant motion to tax costs on September 16, 2019.

Where Defendant formally withdrew his memorandum of costs 4 days before Plaintiff filed the instant motion to tax the costs therein, the result is that Plaintiff has moved to the costs of a memorandum of costs that was no longer operative at the time the motion was filed.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as moot.

     e. Sanctions

Plaintiff has requested sanctions in the amount of $7,500.00 against Defendant in connection with its motion to tax costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. However, because Plaintiff’s motion was moot from its inception, the Court will not consider his request for sanctions.

Likewise, Defendant has requested in his opposition sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $7,500.00 pursuant to Section 128.5.

As evidenced by the email from Plaintiff’s counsel sent to Defendant on September 09, 2019, it was demanded that Defendant’s memorandum of costs “be withdrawn immediately” lest Plaintiff file a motion to tax costs and request sanction. (See Exhibit “C” of the moving papers).

Section 128.5 provides that reasonable attorney's fees may be awarded as a sanction against a party who has filed or persisted in the bringing of a frivolous motion in bad faith. The motion is “frivolous” if it is “totally and completely without merit” or filed “for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (b)(2).) Before bringing a motion for attorney's fees as a sanction under this statute, the moving party must comply with the “safe harbor” provisions of Section 128.5, subdivision (f)(1)(B). Moreover, a motion for sanctions under this section must be made separately from other motions or requests. (Code Civ. Proc, § 128.5, subd. (f)(1)(A).)

While sanctions may be imposed pursuant to Section 128.5 for the bringing of a frivolous motion to tax costs (see Silver v. Gold (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 17, 26), Defendant has failed to bring the request in a separately filed motion pursuant to Section 128.5, subdivision (f)(1)(A). Moreover, especially in the absence of a declaration from counsel explaining the billing rate and hours spent, $7,500.00 in connection with an opposition to a relatively brief motion to tax costs is not reasonable.

Accordingly, the request for sanctions is DENIED.

4. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs is DENIED as moot. Requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Defendant to give notice.