Bui vs. Larios

proceedings; here, the action was for reformation and declaratory relief, and the judgment obtained is not a money judgment on the Note and there has been no foreclosure. Thus, in Yoon, the attorney fee provisions were triggered because the lender was actively pursuing the Section 22 remedies; here, the Section 22 remedies have not been invoked.

For these reasons, Plaintiff has not established that the contractual fee provisions on which it relies authorize recovery of the attorney fees. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Request for Costs

“ ‘The right to recover any of the costs of a civil action “is determined entirely by statute.” ’ [Citation.]” (Charton v. Harkey (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 730, 737.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1) requires a prevailing party claiming costs to serve and file a memorandum of costs. An opposing party may challenge the claimed costs by filing a motion to strike or tax costs under rule 3.1700(b).

Plaintiff separately filed a Memorandum of Costs on April 3, 2026. (ROA 272; Plaintiff’s RJN, Ex. 60.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s recoverable statutory costs should be determined through the procedures applicable to the Memorandum of Costs and not through this motion.

Defendant to give notice.

60 Bui vs. Larios

23-01369491 Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

Parties to appear.

61 Liang vs. UCI Police Department

26-01551207 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Parties to appear.