This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/17/2019 at 01:42:11 (UTC).

JOSE VALENZUELA VS JAIME DE LA ROSA

Case Summary

On 05/14/2018 a Property - Other Real Property case was filed by JOSE VALENZUELA against JAIME DE LA ROSA in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6112

  • Filing Date:

    05/14/2018

  • 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

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

VALENZUELA JOSE

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-10

DE LA ROSA JAIME

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

5/31/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

6/6/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) QUIET TITLE (2) CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENT; ETC.

6/22/2018: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) QUIET TITLE (2) CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENT; ETC.

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

8/27/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

9/4/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

9/6/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Minute Order

9/6/2018: Minute Order

ORDER RE NON-JURY TRIAL SETTING AND TRIAL PREPARATION

9/6/2018: ORDER RE NON-JURY TRIAL SETTING AND TRIAL PREPARATION

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

6/3/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) QUIET TITLE ;ETC

5/14/2018: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) QUIET TITLE ;ETC

LIS PENDENS

5/14/2018: LIS PENDENS

SUMMONS

5/14/2018: SUMMONS

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/15/2019
  • at 08:32 AM in Department 73; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 73; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Trial Date Set) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-09-06 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • ORDER RE NON-JURY TRIAL SETTING AND TRIAL PREPARATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • Order; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • Case Management Order; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Jose Valenzuela (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
3 More Docket Entries
  • 06/22/2018
  • ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) QUIET TITLE (2) CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENT; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Jaime De La Rosa (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose Valenzuela (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • LIS PENDENS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Jose Valenzuela (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) QUIET TITLE ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC706112    Hearing Date: February 13, 2020    Dept: 73

2/13/20

Dept. 73

Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding

Jose Valenzuela v. Jaime De La Rosa (BC706112)

Counsel for plaintiff/moving party: John Bazan (Bazan, etc.)

Counsel for defendant/opposing party: Jose Palacio (Palacio, etc.)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS (filed 12/30/19)

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs is GRANTED.

Discussion

On December 4, 2019, following a full bench trial, judgment was entered in favor of Defendant, against Plaintiff, on all causes of action. It was further ordered that “the Lis Pendens previously filed and/or recorded by Plaintiff” be expunged. The judgment states that Defendant is entitled to the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs as provided by statute against Plaintiff. Defendant timely filed his memorandum of costs, seeking, inter alia, recovery of attorney’s fees in the amount of $48,019.60.

Plaintiff now moves for an order taxing costs, arguing that Item 10 (Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees) is improper because they are not allowable by contract, law, or statute as required under Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 1033.5. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that the requested attorneys’ fees are not “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation,” and are not “reasonable in the amount.” In opposition, Defendant argues that he is entitled to attorneys’ fees, as the prevailing party, pursuant to CCP § 405.38. Defendant reasons that after the court’s statement of decision and before judgment was entered, Defendant’s counsel made requests to Plaintiff’s counsel to dismiss the quiet title action and lift the lis pendens, but that such requests were ignored.

Analysis

CCP § 405.30 allows a party to “apply” for an expungement of the notice. Later, that same section, calls for a “motion.” Pursuant to CCP § 405.38, a party may then seek attorney’s fees for having prevailed on “any motion under this chapter,” i.e., under Chapter 3 of Title 4.5. Defendant’s counsel states he made informal requests of plaintiff to withdraw the lis pendens, but does not contend such requests fall within the statute. Were that the case, any prevailing party could then point to any informal request as the basis for fees, obviously not what the Legislature intended. Further, while Defendant here may argue (he has not) that he “applied” for an expungement simply by submitting a proposed judgment to the court (on an unknown date without a proof of service), Defendant does not claim having filed, nor has he ever filed, a noticed “motion” to expunge the lis pendens under Chapter 3, potentially bringing his fee request within the lis pendens statutes. The mere addition of the relevant paragraph (Judgment, 2:25-3:2) in the proposed judgment cannot be construed as a motion without otherwise complying with notice and service requirements as are typical requirements for a motion. Rather, the judgment and order to expunge the lis pendens resulted in due course after the entire case was tried before this court upon Defendant having prevailed.

Defendant fails to cite any other statutory, contractual, or legal basis for his entitlement to the recovery of attorneys’ fees in this action.

Given the above ruling, it is unnecessary to decide the issue of reasonableness of the amount of fees Defendant seeks.

Plaintiff’s motion to tax Item 10 of Defendant’s Memorandum of Costs is GRANTED.