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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DE LA ROSA JAIME
5/31/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
6/6/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
6/22/2018: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) QUIET TITLE (2) CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENT; ETC.
8/27/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
9/4/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
9/6/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
9/6/2018: Minute Order
9/6/2018: ORDER RE NON-JURY TRIAL SETTING AND TRIAL PREPARATION
6/3/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
5/14/2018: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) QUIET TITLE ;ETC
5/14/2018: LIS PENDENS
at 08:32 AM in Department 73; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 73; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Trial Date Set) -Read MoreRead Less
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDERRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-09-06 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
ORDER RE NON-JURY TRIAL SETTING AND TRIAL PREPARATIONRead MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
Order; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Order; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by Jose Valenzuela (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) QUIET TITLE (2) CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENT; ETC.Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Jaime De La Rosa (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose Valenzuela (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
LIS PENDENSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Jose Valenzuela (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) QUIET TITLE ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC706112 Hearing Date: February 13, 2020 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)
Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs is GRANTED.
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.
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.