Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: LAM12CG6221, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling
If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**
Case Number: LAM12CG6221 Hearing Date: August 10, 2022 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ORDER ALLOWING COSTS
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Assignee Edward Richard Sullivan III
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION FOR ORDER ALLOWING COSTS
(CCP § 685.040 et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Assignee Edward Richard Sullivan III’s Motion for an Order Allowing Costs in the Sum of $1,280.00 for Enforcement of Judgment is GRANTED.
SERVICE:
[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK
[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK
[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 9, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as of August 9, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I. Background
On December 7, 2018, a money judgment was renewed in the amount of $4,001.53 in favor of Plaintiff and Assignee of Record Edward Richard Sullivan III (“Assignee”) and against Defendant and Judgment Debtor Leo Pido Dano (aka Leo Dano) (“Judgment Debtor”).
On June 30, 2022, Assignee, in propria persona, filed the instant Motion for an Order Allowing Costs for Enforcement of Judgment, in the amount of $1,530 (the “Motion”).
No opposition was filed.
II. Request for Judicial Notice
Assignee filed a Request for Judicial Notice, seeking judicial notice of the orders and documents filed in the instant case. According to Evidence Code § 452, the Court may take judicial notice of matters that include records or rules of another court and facts or propositions of common knowledge, among other matters. Here, however, it is not necessary to take judicial notice of this Court’s file so Assignee’s Request for Judicial Notice is denied because it is unnecessary.
III. Legal Standard & Discussion
A judgment creditor is entitled to recover the reasonable and necessary costs incurred in enforcing a judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 685.040.) Costs authorized by § 685.040 may be claimed by filing a memorandum of costs or via noticed motion before the judgment is satisfied in full but not later than two years after the costs have been incurred. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 685.070(b), 685.080(a).) Allowed costs include, but are not limited to, those costs outlined in § 685.070. (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.080(a).) The notice of motion must describe the costs claimed, must state their amount, and must be supported by “an affidavit of a person who has knowledge of the facts stating that to the person’s best knowledge and belief the costs are correct, and reasonable and necessary, and have not been satisfied.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.080(b).) The motion must be served personally or by mail. (Ibid.) The court must make an order allowing or disallowing the costs to the extent justified under the circumstances of that particular case. (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.080(c).)
Assignee Sullivan seeks to recover costs of $1,530.00 incurred in enforcing the Judgment. (6-30-22 Sullivan Decl., p. 3, ¶¶ 1, 5.) The costs sought are broken down as follows (1) $350.00 in service fees for Assignee’s August 31, 2020, Motion to Amend Judgment; (2) $250.00 in service fees for Assignee’s October 23, 2020 Motion for Costs, (3) $450.00 in service fees for Assignee’s August 5, 2021, Motion to Compel Discovery; (4) $250.00 in service fees for Assignee’s February 23, 2022, Motion for an Issue Sanction; (5) $150.00 in service fees for Assignee’s May 27, 2022, Motion to Amend Judgment; (6) $40.00 in fees for serving Memorandum of Costs on Debtor on August 12, 2020; and (7) $40.00 in fees for serving Memorandum of Costs on Debtor on December 7, 2020. (Ibid. at pp. 4-8; Tables 1-6.)
The Motion is timely and is supported by an affidavit from Assignee Sullivan explaining the basis for the costs incurred and attesting that the costs incurred are reasonable and necessary and have not been satisfied. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 4, 33-34.) Having reviewed the costs sought, the Court finds that service fees above $100.00 are excessive and reduces them accordingly. The Court finds costs in the amount of $1,280.00 to be reasonable and necessary to enforce the Judgment against Judgment Debtor. Thus, Assignee Sullivan’s Motion is GRANTED in the amount of $1,280.00.
IV. Conclusion & Order
Assignee Edward Richard Sullivan III’s Motion for an Order Allowing Costs in the Sum of $1,280.00 for Enforcement of Judgment is GRANTED.
Moving Party to give notice.
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION
TO AMEND JUDGMENT
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Assignee
Edward Richard Sullivan III
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT
(CCP § 187, 674(c)(1), 699.510(c)(2))
TENTATIVE RULING:
Assignee Edward Richard Sullivan III’s
Motion to Amend Judgment is GRANTED. The
following additional names are added to the Judgment:
(1)
Leo P. Dano;
(2)
Leo P. Dano Jr.;
(3)
Leo Pido Dano, Jr.;
(4)
Leo Pido Dano II.
SERVICE:
[X]
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK
[X]
Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK
[X]
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 9,
2022 [ ] Late [X]
None
REPLY: None filed as
of August 9, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On December 7, 2018, a money
judgment was renewed in the amount of $4,001.53 in favor of Plaintiff and
Assignee of Record Edward Richard Sullivan III (“Assignee”) and against
Defendant and Judgment Debtor Leo Pido Dano (aka Leo Dano) (“Judgment Debtor”).
On August 31, 2020, Assignee, in
propria persona, filed a Motion for an Order that the Identification of the
Judgment Debtor Shall Include Four Additional Names by Which the Judgment
Debtor is Known. On May 12, 2021, the
Court, on Assignee’s request, placed the Motion off calendar to allow Assignee
time to obtain additional evidence proving that the additional names referred
to the Debtor in the case. (5-12-21
Minute Order.)
On May 27, 2022, Assignee, in
propria persona, filed the instant Motion for an Order Amending the Judgment by
Adding Four Additional Names by Which the Judgment Debtor is Known (the
“Motion”). No opposition was filed.
II.
Legal
Standard
Code
of Civil Procedure § 187 states: “[w]hen jurisdiction is, by the Constitution
or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial
officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in
the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not
specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or
mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the
spirit of this code.” “Section 187 contemplates amending a judgment by noticed
motion. [Citations.] The court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing
on a motion to amend a judgment, but may rule on the motion based solely on
declarations and other written evidence. [Citation.]” (Highland Springs
Conference & Training Center v. City of Banning (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th
267, 280.) “In the interests of justice, the ‘‘‘greatest liberality is to be
encouraged’’’ in the allowance of amendments brought pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 187. [Citation.]” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Weinberg
(2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1, 7.)
According
to Code of Civil Procedure § 674(c)(1), “the abstract
of judgment shall be certified in the name of the judgment debtor as listed on
the judgment and may also include the additional name or names by which the
judgment debtor is known as set forth in the affidavit of identity, as defined
in Section 680.135, filed by the judgment creditor with the application for
issuance of the abstract of judgment. Prior to the clerk of the court
certifying an abstract of judgment containing any additional name or names by
which the judgment debtor is known that are not listed on the judgment, the
court shall approve the affidavit of identity. If the court determines, without
a hearing or a notice, that the affidavit of identity states sufficient facts
upon which the judgment creditor has identified the additional names of the
judgment debtor, the court shall authorize the certification of the abstract of
judgment with the additional name or names.”
The
writ of execution may contain additional names of the judgment debtor; however,
“[p]rior to the clerk of the court issuing a writ of execution containing any
additional name or names by which the judgment debtor is known that are not
listed on the judgment, the court shall approve the affidavit of identity.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 699.510(c)(2).)
III.
Request
for Judicial Notice
Assignee filed a Request for Judicial
Notice as to all documents, pursuant to Evidence Code § 452. According to Evidence Code § 452, the Court
may take judicial notice of matters that include records or rules of another
court and facts or propositions of common knowledge, among other matters. Assignee seeks judicial notice of the orders
and documents filed in the instant case.
As it is not necessary to take judicial notice of these documents, the
Court DENIES Assignee’s Request for Judicial Notice.
IV.
Discussion
Judgment
was entered against Leo Pido Dano aka Leo Dano. Assignee seeks an order amending the Judgment
to include the following four additional names: (1) Leo P. Dano; (2) Leo P.
Dano Jr.; (3) Leo Pido Dano, Jr.; and (4) Leo Pido Dano II. (Mot. p. 2.)
On
August 31, 2020, Assignee filed a Motion to Amend Judgment to include the four
additional names by which Judgment Debtor is known. The Motion contained an Affidavit of Identity
and Order listing other names of Judgment Debtor – “Leo P. Dano; Leo P. Dano
Jr.; Leo Pido Dano Jr., Leo Pido Dano II.”
(8-31-20 Mot. p. 66.) After
reviewing Assignee’s August 31, 2020, Motion and Affidavit of Identity and
Order, the Court found that the extensive evidence provided by Assignee
regarding additional names was not sufficient because Assignee did not
demonstrate that the Judgment Debtor was the same person as reflected in the
additional names. (3-9-21 Minute Order.) The matter was continued to allow Assignee
additional time to provide this evidence.
(Ibid.) On May 12, 2021,
Assignee requested to take the matter off calendar to allow for time to obtain
this additional evidence. (5-12-21 Minute
Order.)
On
May 16, 2022, the Court granted Assignee’s February 23, 2022, Motion for Issue
Sanctions and ordered that “the following facts are taken as established in
this action: (a) the date of birth of the Judgment Debtor is September 29,
1966; (b) the place of birth of the Judgment Debtor is in the County of Los
Angeles in the State of California; (c) the name of the father of the Judgment
Debtor is Leo Abdujan Dano; and (d) the maiden name of the mother of the
Judgment Debtor is Angelita Perez.” (5-16-22
Minute Order.)
Assignee
argues that given the May 16, 2022, Court Order, he has established that the
additional names refer to the Judgment Debtor.
(Mot. pp. 8-9.) Assignee refers
to the copy of the Birth Certificate of Leo Pido Dano II and the License and
Certificate of Marriage of Leo Pido Dano Jr., attached to his August 31, 2020,
Motion, which contain the same birthdate, location of birth, and parents’ names
as Judgment Debtor. (Ibid.,
8-31-20 Mot. pp. 24-26.) Although,
Assignee incorrectly states that these documents list a birthdate of January
29, 1996, it is clear from the documents that the birthdate for the Leo Pido Dano
Jr. and Leo Pido Dano II is September 29, 1966.
(8-31-20 Mot. pp. 24-26.)
The
Court is presented with evidence showing that Leo Pido Dano aka Leo Dano, Leo
Pido Dano Jr., and Leo Pido Dano II all share the following biographical
characteristics: (a) date of birth of September 29, 1966; (b) state of birth –
California, (c) father Leo Abdjuan Dano and (d) mother – Angelita or Angie
Perez.
Given
that Assignee has established the identity of the Judgment Debtor and
demonstrated that the additional names correspond to the same Debtor,
Assignee’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED.
V.
Conclusion
& Order
For the foregoing reasons, Assignee
Edward Richard Sullivan III’s Motion to Amend Judgment is GRANTED. The following additional names are added to
the Judgment:
(1)
Leo P. Dano;
(2)
Leo P. Dano Jr.;
(3)
Leo Pido Dano, Jr.;
Leo
Pido Dano II.
Moving party is ordered to give
notice.