Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: BC59957, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC59957 Hearing Date: January 6, 2023 Dept: 32
|
JORGE PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. HIBACHI BUFFET, Defendant.
|
Case No.: BC659957 Hearing Date: January 6, 2023 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: plaintiff’s motion for costs of proof |
|
|
|
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Jorge Perez initiated this
action against Defendant Hibachi Buffet on May 2, 2017, asserting negligence and
premises liability for a slip and fall. On October 7, 2019, a jury returned a verdict
in favor of Plaintiff. Judgment was originally entered on November 12, 2019,
but the trial court granted a motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict,
thereby vacating the original judgment. On December 2, 2022, the Court of
Appeal reversed, effectively reinstating the November 12, 2019 judgment.
On December 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed
the instant motion to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in proving the truth of
matters that Defendant denied in requests for admission.
LEGAL STANDARD
“If a party fails to admit the genuineness
of any document or the truth of any matter when requested to do so under this
chapter, and if the party requesting that admission thereafter proves the
genuineness of that document or the truth of that matter, the party requesting
the admission may move the court for an order requiring the party to whom the
request was directed to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making that
proof, including reasonable attorney’s fees.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.420(a).)
“The court shall make this order unless it finds any of the following:
(1)
An objection to the request was sustained or a response to it was waived under
Section 2033.290. (2) The admission sought was of no substantial importance. (3)
The party failing to make the admission had reasonable ground to believe that
that party would prevail on the matter. (4) There was other good reason for the
failure to admit.” (Id., subd. (b).)
DISCUSSION
By failing to oppose the motion, Defendant
concedes its merit and confirms that an award of costs is warranted.
Plaintiff seeks to recover $200,630. A
party may move to recover “reasonable” expenses incurred in proving the truth
of matters denied in RFAs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.420(a).) Plaintiff’s
counsel’s hourly rate of $450 is reasonable given his experience. (See Kramer
Decl. ¶¶ 25-27.) However, the number of hours claimed is unreasonably high. Plaintiff
may only recover the costs of proving the denied RFAs, not the entire costs of
litigation.
Plaintiff’s counsel avers that he spent
241.25 hours “proving that Defendant was negligent, that Plaintiff was not
negligent, that Defendant's negligence caused the subject incident, and that
Plaintiffs injuries were caused solely by Defendant's negligence.” (Kramer
Decl., ¶¶ 29, 33.) This essentially encompasses the entire scope of the litigation.
Additionally, the hours include generic litigation costs such as “appearing at
depositions, preparing witnesses for deposition and trial including my client, preparing
opening statement and closing arguments, crafting our trial strategy and
preparing for trial, questioning witnesses, attending to all trial matters and
appearing at trial . . . .” (Id., ¶ 30.) The firm’s paralegal claims an additional
89.5 hours spent on the same broad issues. (Twitty Decl. ¶¶ 4-7.) The associate
attorney claims an additional 269.6 hours on general litigation tasks such as
reviewing discovery responses, opposing motions, and “briefing other matters.”
(Johnson Decl. ¶¶ 10-12.)
These costs are not limited to proving the
truth of matters denied in the RFAs. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s law firm
could not have reasonably spent around 600 hours on proving 17 RFAs. Plaintiff
is essentially attempting to recover all the costs of litigation, which is not the
purpose of Section 2033.420. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel could
only have reasonably spent 50 hours related to the RFAs in question, given the
simplicity of the issues involved and Defendant’s failure to contest the facts
at trial. At a rate of $450 per hour, this results in a total of $22,500.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion to recover costs
of proof is GRANTED in the amount of $22,500.