Judge: H. Chester Horn, Jr., Case: 20STCV, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling
If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.
Case Number: 20STCV Hearing Date: January 9, 2023 Dept: I
LORRAINE KNIGHT v. ROBIN HASKELL and JAY HASKELL
20STCV03008
Tentative Ruling Re: Defendant’s Motion To Strike or Tax Costs
Defendants seek to tax or strike seven categories of items from plaintiff’s costs bill. The Court will rule as follows:
- $40.00 for filing fees associated with two stipulations to continue the trial based on requests from the plaintiff fand her counsel. The Court will disallow the fees because they were incurred solely for the convenience of the Plaintiff an her attorney.
$968.01 for jury fees that Plaintiff paid as part of an agreement to split the jury fees in this case. C.C.P. sec. 1033.5 (a)(1) expressly allows the prevailing party to recover jury fees incurred. Here the parties agreed to share the jury fees, but Defendants presented no evidence that the agreement waived rights under this code section.
4. Defendants challenge the claim for recovery of deposition costs in the amount of $20,244.50 on the grounds that Plaintiff’s Costs Bill proves no receipts or supporting documents. However, in their Opposition, Plaintiffs provided invoices and receipts for all of the claimed costs. [Opposition at 4-5 and Exhibit C.]
5. $742.40 for Service of Process on Robin and Jay Haskell. The claim is made because Plaintiff chose to use private investigators to serve the Defendants. However, C.C.P. sec. 1033.5(4)(D) only allows the amount to be the same as would be incurred if service is accomplished by a public officer. Pursuant to the provisions of Govt. Code sec. 26721(a) that amount is $40. Accordingly, the Court will allow a total of $80 for this item.
8.b. Defendants seek to tax the expert fees sought as costs for several of Plaintiff’s experts. The First is $21,025.00 for Dr. Jonathan Berkowitz. As noted by Plaintiff in her Opposition, she served a C.C.P. sec. 998 demand on the Defendants that was not accepted. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover all of her expert witness costs. The support for the total requested for Dr. Berkowitz is shown in Exh. E of Plaintiff’s Opposition and fully justifies the $21,025.00 amount which the Court will allow.
Second, Defendants seek to tax the costs for Ms. Jan Roughhan in the amount $45,585.85 This amount is clearly reflected in Exh. E of plaintiff’s Opposition and full warranted in the Court’s view, so it will be allowed.
Third, Defendant seek to tax the costs for Plaintiff’s expert David Teetz in the amount of $10,375.00. Again, the full amount claimed is fully justified by the invoices set forth in Plaintiff’s Exh. E and the Court will allow this amount.
Fourth, Defendants seek to x the fees for Dr. Anthony Ahn in the amount of $5500.00. However, Dr. Ahn’s billing is fully set forth in Exh. E to Plaintiff’s Opposition and the Court finds that it was reasonable and necessary. So the Court will allow this amount as well.
Fifth, Defendants seek to tax the fees for Dr. Marcel Ponton and Ms. Rachelle Mand, who were designated as a retained expert and a non-retained expert to testify relating to certain psychological issues which were never pursued at trial. The amount sought for the two is $11,150. The Court finds that, since neither wee called as witnesses and Plaintiff chose not pursue the psychological claims, these amounts were not reasonably necessary for this litigation , so the Court exercises its discretion to deny thee costs.
11. Defendants seek to tax the costs incurred by Plaintiff for models, enlargements and photocopies of exhibits in the amount of $30,857.84. The Court finds that the use of photocopies, a medical animation, and blowups of various exhibits was very helpful to the jury and were, therefore, reasonably necessary to this trial. Accordingly, the Court will allow the full amount.
16. Defendants seek to tax $90,678.31 for various items listed in the costs bills “Other.” First, Defendants seek to tax $26,745.42 claimed by plaintiff for trial preparation including the use of focus groups, a jury consultant, a psychodrama and mediation. The Court agrees that these items were done for the benefit of Plaintiff and were not reasonably necessary for the litigation. Accordingly, the Court will not allow this cost.
Second, Defendants seek to tax $640.06 for client travel and room costs. However, the Plaintiff waived these costs in her Opposition. Accordingly, the Court will tax this cost in full.
Third, Defendants seek to tax $11,631.82 for records and a DME observer retained for the conduct of the defense medical exam in this case. Since the defendants requested, as was their right, to conduct the exam, Plaintiff was entitled to have an observer present. Clearly, the costs of the exam were reasonably necessary to the conduct of this litigation. Accordingly, the Court will allow this amount in full.
Fourth, Defendants seek to tax $15,882.78 for messenger fees and investigator fees. The Court has reviewed the invoices for the messenger fees and the investigator fees. The court will allow the messenger service fees in the amount of $5,657.78, but disallow the investigator fees in the amount of $10,225. Because they are expressly prohibited by C.C.P. sec. 1033.5(b)(2).
Fifth, Defendants seek to tax $26,450.01 for court reporter transcripts. However, the Plaintiff withdrew that request in their Opposition, so the Court will tax that amount in full.
Sixth, The Defendants seek to tax $2,228.22 for deposition summaries. Plaintiff argues that the summaries were reasonably necessary to the litigation because they enable counsel to prepare for direct and cross-examination of numerous witnesses more effectively. The Court finds that to be a reasonable claim, so the Court will allow this cost.
Finally, Defendants seek to tax the costs for deposition witness fees listed in Item 16(g) of the costs bill in the amount of$7,100. The Plaintiff did not respond to this claim, so the Court will tax this amount in full.
Conclusion
The Court will allow a total of $152,053.85 for the claimed costs of suit. The Court will also allow the undisputed amount of $1,351,305.48 for Pre-Judgment Interest, and $3,013.70 per day for Post -Judgment Interest until the judgment is satisfied.