Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV34204, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV34204    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant County of Los Angeles’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs Pursuant to CCP § 1038

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff Dzmitry Suyetsin (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) for general negligence. On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. 

On April 29, 2021, Defendant filed its answer.  On May 18, 2022, the Court granted summary judgment in Defendant’s favor.

On June 15, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs Pursuant to CCP 1038 to be heard on August 12, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests the Court grant the motion and order Plaintiff to pay $146,055.81 in fees and costs and $1,075.00 in filling fees.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 1038 provides that in any civil proceeding under the Government Claims Act, the court shall determine if the case was brought in good faith and with reasonable cause. If the Court determines it was not brought in good faith, the Court shall render judgment in favor of the defending party in the amount all reasonable and necessary defense costs, in addition to those normally awarded to the prevailing party. This includes reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and anything reasonably and necessarily incurred in defending the proceeding.

Generally, a “prevailing party” is entitled to costs, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1032(b); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606.). A prevailing party includes “a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered,” and a “defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1032(a)(4).) “A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of mailing of the notice of entry of judgment…The memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700.)

The losing party may contest the costs that a prevailing party seeks. (CCP §1034(a).) The challenging party has the burden of demonstrating that those costs are unreasonable or unnecessary. (Adams v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 1475, 1486; 612 South LLC v. Laconic Limited Partnership, (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1270, 1285.)  If items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. (Id.)  “Defendant's mere statements in the points and authorities accompanying its notice of motion to strike cost bill and the declaration of its counsel are insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing.”  (Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Service, Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 266.)

DISCUSSION

The Court recently granted summary judgment in Defendant’s favor, finding that Defendant was not guilty of general negligence in placing Plaintiff in a chair while taking his blood at Defendant’s premises. Plaintiff alleged that the dangerous condition of the chair resulted in him falling out of the chair and injuring himself.

In order to determine if good faith was met, the Court must weigh if Plaintiff believed the action valid and the intent of pursuing it. Knight v. City of Capitola (1992) 4 Cal. App. 4th 918, 932. In support of finding there was not good faith, Defendant points to the Motion for Summary Judgment, in which Plaintiff failed to provide evidence to support his claim. First, the Court finds that Plaintiff did provide evidence to support his motion.  Plaintiff provided various declarations to support his contention that the chair upon which he was sat was an inappropriate chair.  Unfortunately for Plaintiff, the Court found that the declarations were wanting and did not create relevant issues of fact.  But the Court finds this failure not to be evidence of bad faith. A weak case, alone, is not sufficient to find bad faith on behalf of the Plaintiff.  Here, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to establish facts supporting a contention that this action was brought in bad faith. Defendant makes no showing that Plaintiff knowingly brought a weak cause of action with the hope that Defendant would settle prior to actual litigation. Defendant owned the subject site and was not protected by statutory immunity. As such, the Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant County of Los Angeles’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs Pursuant to CCP § 1038 is DENIED.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.