This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/19/2021 at 22:03:00 (UTC).

LAURA JONES VS MANUEL ALONSO

Case Summary

On 11/08/2017 LAURA JONES filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MANUEL ALONSO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2890

  • Filing Date:

    11/08/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

JONES LAURA

Respondent and Defendant

ALONSO MANUEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

WALLERSTEIN MICHAEL ESQ.

MICHAEL WALLERSTEIN LAW OFFICE OF

Defendant Attorneys

THOMPSON & THOMPSON

KELLER EDWING FRANK

 

Court Documents

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR 1. BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT, ETC

1/4/2018: PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR 1. BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT, ETC

GENERAL DENIAL -

1/9/2018: GENERAL DENIAL -

Proof of Service -

1/17/2018: Proof of Service -

Proof of Service -

2/5/2018: Proof of Service -

GENERAL DENIAL -

2/8/2018: GENERAL DENIAL -

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

2/15/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

2/22/2018: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

2/23/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

2/27/2018: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

2/27/2018: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

Proof of Service -

3/5/2018: Proof of Service -

Minute Order -

3/15/2018: Minute Order -

DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT

3/26/2018: DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

3/27/2018: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

Minute Order -

3/27/2018: Minute Order -

NOTICE OF RULING REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

4/16/2018: NOTICE OF RULING REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT

6/15/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT

PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE-CIVIL

6/22/2018: PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE-CIVIL

81 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (REGARDING PLAINTIFF?S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY?S FEES AND COSTS); Filed by Laura Jones (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 56; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 56; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees; Order to Show Cause Re: ...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/06/2020
  • DocketOpposition (TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS); Filed by Manuel Alonso (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/08/2019
  • DocketMotion for Attorney Fees; Filed by Laura Jones (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/23/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 56; Order to Show Cause Re: (Sale of Residence) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/16/2019
  • DocketNotice (of Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal); Filed by Manuel Alonso (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/10/2019
  • DocketStatus Report; Filed by Michael Wallerstein, Law Office of (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/09/2019
  • DocketStatus Report; Filed by Manuel Alonso (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
99 More Docket Entries
  • 12/01/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Laura Jones (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-CONTRACT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Laura Jones (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Laura Jones (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****2890    Hearing Date: February 24, 2020    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

LAURA JONES, etc.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MANUEL ALONSO,

Defendant.

CASE NO.: ****2890

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

Date: February 24, 2020

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Laura Jones

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Manuel Alonso

The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers. No reply papers were filed, and no courtesy copy of any reply papers were provided to the Court.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant arising from an alleged breach of oral contract, alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of implied contract; (2) quantum meruit; and (3) quiet title. The FAC alleges, in part, that: (1) on or about April 1, 1992, Plaintiff and Defendant began living together in Los Angeles County, CA; (2) Plaintiff and Defendant began living together at 16628 Witzman Drive, La Puente, CA 91744 on or about October 2, 2002 and on or about August 5, 2017, the parties ceased living together without any intention of continuing their relationship; and (3) as part of an oral contract implied from the conduct of the parties at the time they started living together, Plaintiff worked full time and devoted her skills, efforts, labors, and earnings to maintaining the parties’ household.

On January 18, 2019, the Court entered judgment in connection with the FAC. With respect to the first cause of action in the FAC, the Court ruled that Plaintiff was awarded a one-half interest in the house only and in no other property accumulated by the parties during their relationship or otherwise. In connection with the second cause of action in the FAC, the Court ruled that Plaintiff was not entitled to recover any amounts under a theory of quantum meruit. In connection with the third cause of action in the FAC, the Court ruled that Plaintiff was awarded a one-half ownership interest in the house.

On November 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of $19,610.00 and for costs in the amount of $3,134.00. Plaintiff’s motion is made on the grounds that: (1) Plaintiff is the prevailing party having served as the catalyst for Defendant’s voluntary acquiescence to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act; (2) they enforced an important public interest; (3) they conferred a significant benefit upon the public; (4) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement makes such award appropriate; and (5) the fees Plaintiff incurred in obtaining relief in this action are reasonable and fully recoverable.

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion and asserts that: (1) the motion does not meet statutory requirements; (2) the judgment does not provide for attorney’s fees and costs; and (3) Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney’s fees or costs under California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 998(d).

Initially, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s assertion that the January 18, 2019 judgment in this action provided for attorney’s fees and costs is incorrect. The judgment did not provide for attorney’s fees and costs.

DISCUSSION

Issue No.1: Timeliness

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s motion is not compliant with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1702 and as such the motion should be denied.

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1702(a) says that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, this rule applies in civil cases to claims for statutory attorney’s fees and claims for attorney’s fees provided for in a contract.” California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1702(b)(1) says that “[a] notice of motion to claim attorney’s fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court—including attorney’s fees on an appeal before the rendition of judgment in the trial court—must be served within the time for filing a notice of appeal under rules 8.104 and 8.108 in an unlimited civil case or under rules 8.822 and 8.823 in a limited civil case.” California Rules of Court, Rule 8.104 says that a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of: (1) 60 days after the superior court clerk serves on the party filing the notice of appeal a document entitled “Notice of Entry” of judgment or a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, showing the date either was served; (2) 60 days after the party filing the notice of appeal serves or is served by a party with a document entitled “Notice of Entry” of judgment or a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, accompanied by a proof of service; or (3) 180 days after entry of judgment.

Here, judgment in this action was entered on January 18, 2019. Plaintiff did not file her motion for attorney’s fees until November 8, 2019, which is more than 180 days after the entry of judgment and well over nine months after judgment was entered. Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. Plaintiff’s motion, although being brought under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1702, does not address the timeliness requirement thereto. Plaintiff failed to file a reply brief and as such did not address the argument raised by Defendant with respect to timeliness. As indicated by the language of Rule 3.1702, the timing requirement is mandatory and is not permissive. Plaintiff’s motion is untimely.

Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 24th day of February 2020

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KELLER EDWING FRANK