This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/15/2019 at 00:59:57 (UTC).

HARRY LOVELAND, ET AL. VS. SOL DEL CIELO, LLC, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 04/17/2018 HARRY LOVELAND filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against SOL DEL CIELO, LLC. 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:

    ****9123

  • Filing Date:

    04/17/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Compton Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MAURICE A. LEITER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Cross Defendants and Appellants

LOVELAND HARRY

LOVELAND CHARLENE

SANTOS MANUEL

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

SANDOVAL ABRAHAM JR.

SOL DEL CIEL LLC

M.L. CULKIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC.

GOMEZ ELOY

LOVELAND DOE 1 WILLIAM TROY

Other

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Respondent and Plaintiff Attorney

SCHNEIDER CLIFF DEAN

Defendant Attorney

SANDOVAL ABRAHAM

 

Court Documents

Summons

4/17/2018: Summons

Notice

7/27/2018: Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

7/27/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Legacy Document

7/27/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

8/29/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

9/7/2018: Legacy Document

Case Management Statement

9/14/2018: Case Management Statement

Cross-Complaint

9/14/2018: Cross-Complaint

Summons

9/27/2018: Summons

Legacy Document

10/1/2018: Legacy Document

Application

10/1/2018: Application

Answer

10/31/2018: Answer

Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal

1/25/2019: Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal

Declaration

3/26/2019: Declaration

Objection

4/2/2019: Objection

Declaration

4/19/2019: Declaration

Request for Judicial Notice

4/19/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration

6/26/2019: Declaration

114 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/11/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • Objection (Evidentiary Objections to Declarations of Charlene Loveland and Cliff Dean Schneider and Exhibits thereof); Filed by SOL DEL CIEL, LLC (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • Reply (in Support of Cross-complainant's Motion for Summary Adjudication); Filed by SOL DEL CIEL, LLC (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2019
  • Declaration (of Cliff Dean Schneider in Opposition to Cross-Complainant Sol Del Cielo, LLC's Motion for Summary Adjudication); Filed by CHARLENE LOVELAND (Cross-Defendant); HARRY LOVELAND (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2019
  • Opposition (to Cross-Complainant Sol Del Cielo, LLC's Motion for Summary Adjudication); Filed by CHARLENE LOVELAND (Cross-Defendant); HARRY LOVELAND (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2019
  • Separate Statement; Filed by CHARLENE LOVELAND (Cross-Defendant); HARRY LOVELAND (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2019
  • Declaration (of Charlene Loveland in opposition to Cross-Complainant Sol Del Cielo, LLC's Motion for Summary Adjudication); Filed by CHARLENE LOVELAND (Cross-Defendant); HARRY LOVELAND (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by SOL DEL CIEL, LLC (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by SOL DEL CIEL, LLC (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
127 More Docket Entries
  • 07/27/2018
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by SOL DEL CIEL, LLC (Cross-Complainant); ABRAHAM SANDOVAL, JR. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • Request for Judicial Notice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • Declaration

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • Motion to Strike; Filed by SOL DEL CIEL, LLC (Cross-Complainant); ABRAHAM SANDOVAL, JR. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • Demurrer; Filed by SOL DEL CIEL, LLC (Cross-Complainant); ABRAHAM SANDOVAL, JR. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by SOL DEL CIEL, LLC (Cross-Complainant); ABRAHAM SANDOVAL, JR. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by CHARLENE LOVELAND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by HARRY LOVELAND (Plaintiff); CHARLENE LOVELAND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: TC029123    Hearing Date: December 12, 2019    Dept: A

# 6. Harry Loveland, et al. v. Sol Del Cielo, LLC, et al.

Case No.: TC029123

Matter on calendar for: Motion to Tax Costs

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    Plaintiffs Barry Loveland and Charlene Loveland own a single-family home at 11159 Louise Ave., Lynwood, CA. The neighboring property at 11165 Louise Ave., Lynwood, CA is being developed. Defendant M.L. Culkin Construction Company, Inc., is overseeing the development; defendant Sol Del Cielo, LLC, is the owner of the property. Defendant Abraham Sandoval is allegedly the sole member of Sol. The Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges:

  1. Trespass to land;

  2. Private Nuisance; and

  3. Trespass to Timber

Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion. Defendants prevailed on the appeal and were granted costs. Plaintiffs now move to tax Defendants’ costs, specifically a $675 item for a letter of credit/opinion in lieu of bond. An opposition has been filed, but as of December 9, 2019, no reply has been received.

As set forth below, the Court grants the motion to tax.

  1. Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 1032(a)(b) states that a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding, unless a statute expressly states otherwise.

The memorandum of cost is a verified statement by the party, attorney, or agent that the costs are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(a)(1).) “If the items appear to be proper charges, the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred by the defendant, and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the [objecting party].” (Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 698.) “[I]f the correctness of the memorandum is challenged either in whole or in part by the affidavit or other evidence of the contesting party, the burden is then on the party claiming the costs and disbursements to show that the items charged were for matters necessarily relevant and material to the issues involved in the action.” (Id. at 699.)

Per Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(c) provides: “(1) Costs are allowable if incurred, whether or not paid. (2) Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation. (3) Allowable costs shall be reasonable in amount. (4) Items not mention in this section . . . may be allowed . . . in the Court’s discretion.” (C.C.P., § 1033.5(c)(4).)

  1. Analysis

    Plaintiffs argue that a letter of credit may only be recovered as a cost when it is to satisfy an underlying outstanding judgment, citing Rostack Investments, Inc. v. Sabella (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 70, 75–80. Because there was no underlying unpaid monetary judgment, Plaintiffs argue, Defendants were not required to file a letter of credit. Defendants argue the letter of credit was required by Sol’s financial institution one Sol notified it of the appeal. Although both parties interpret Rostack, the case does settle the issue as it involved a letter of credit to satisfy a judgment and did not explore whether the boundaries of California Rules of Court, Rule 8.278(d)(1), which governs recoverable costs on appeal.

    Additional guidance is found in the Supreme Court decision in Rossa v. D.L. Construction, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 387, 397, in which the Court found that interest payments incurred by obtaining a bond or letter of credit to stay enforcement of a judgment pending appeal was not recoverable. In reaching this determination, the Court states that cost provisions are strictly construed. (Id. at 395.) The Rossa Court’s analysis of the provisions strongly indicate that the bond or letter of credit must be required by the Court to stay the enforcement of a judgment. Accordingly, Sol’s letter of credit—required by a financial institution as a basis of Sol’s relationship with that institution—is not eligible for recovery.

  2. Ruling

The motion to tax is granted. Counsel do not need to appear at tomorrow’s hearing, unless someone wishes to dispute the Court’s ruling.

Next dates: Future court dates have previously been set for January 2020.

Notice: Plaintiff to give notice.

Case Number: TC029123    Hearing Date: December 03, 2019    Dept: A

# 17. Harry Loveland, et al. v. Sol Del Cielo, LLC, et al.

Case No.: TC029123

Matter on calendar for: Motion for Leave to file Second Amended Complaint; FSC

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    Plaintiffs Barry Loveland and Charlene Loveland own a single-family home at 11159 Louise Ave., Lynwood, CA. The neighboring property at 11165 Louise Ave., Lynwood, CA is being developed. Defendant M.L. Culkin Construction Company, Inc., is overseeing the development; defendant Sol Del Cielo, LLC, is the owner of the property. Defendant Abraham Sandoval is allegedly the sole member of Sol. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges:

  1. Trespass to land;

  2. Private nuisance;

  3. Trespass to timber; and

  4. Conversion

Plaintiffs now move for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The motion is unopposed. Trial is currently set for December 9, 2019.

As set forth below, the Court grants the motion.

  1. Standard

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 473(a)(1) and 576 provide courts with the authority to allow the amendment of pleadings upon a showing of good cause and the absence of prejudice. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b) requires that Plaintiff prepare a declaration specifying (i) the effect of the amendment, (ii) why the amendment is necessary, (iii) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and (iv) why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

In ruling on a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint, the Court generally considers whether the non-moving parties would face prejudice. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486–488.) Examples of prejudice include: delay in trial date, increased costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc. (Id.) “If discovery and investigation develop factual grounds justifying a timely amendment to a pleading, leave to amend must be liberally granted.” (Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596.) California judicial policy generally favors permitting amendment to pleadings. (See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) Denial of leave to amend is appropriate where (1) the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory; and (2) the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3rd 486, 490.)

  1. Analysis

    Plaintiffs request leave to amend the FAC, primarily to remove Defendant Culkin Construction Company. Plaintiffs declare that discovery revealed that Culkin was not the entity responsible for construction on the site. Further, the amended Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) contains updates reflecting that construction on the property has concluded. Plaintiffs have included a redline copy of the SAC that highlights the specific alternations.

    The SAC complaint contains the same substantive allegations, resulting in a lack of prejudice to Defendants from the amendment. In light of the judicial policy favoring amendment, the Court grants the motion.

  2. Ruling

The motion for leave to amend the FAC is granted.

Next dates:

Notice: