Judge: H. Chester Horn, Jr., Case: 20STCV41863, Date: 2023-01-03 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: 20STCV41863 Hearing Date: January 3, 2023 Dept: I
MICHAEL CORPUS v. ASCENCION MARQUEZ,
20STCV41863
Tentative Ruling Re: Plaintiff’s Motion For a New Trial
In this matter, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant on October 11, 2022. The jury found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the subject accident was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s claimed injuries. The Notice of Entry of Judgement was filed on October 24, 2022 and the Certificate of mailing of the Notice is dated October 25, 2022. On November 9, 2022, the plaintiff filed and served his Notice of Intent to file a Motion for a New Trial. Plaintiff filed his Motion for a New trial on November 21, 2022. Plaintiff argues that the Court committed error by denying his Motion for a Directed Verdict on the grounds that all medical doctors that testified agreed that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the subject accident. However, the defendant’s biomechanical witness testified that the forces caused by the accident were insufficient to cause any injuries to plaintiff. The Court denied the Motion for a Directed Verdict and the case was submitted to the jury. Plaintiff argues that the jury’s finding was not supported by the evidence because injury causation because all of the medical doctor’s that testified agreed that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the accident in question. However, the defendant argues that its biomechanical expert’s testimony, plus credibility issues with the plaintiff’s witnesses were sufficient to permit the jury decide that the accident was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries.
As the noted by the defendant in its Opposition, plaintiff’s complaints of injury were all subjective, and turned on credibility determinations. The plaintiff testified that he had been involved in two accidents that he had failed to disclose at his deposition. [Opp. At 5.] The doctors that testified for the plaintiff all treated him on a lien basis, so they had a vested interest in the outcome of the case, raising credibility issues about their opinions. While the defense medical expert agreed “from an historical perspective” that plaintiff’s injuries were related to the accident, he also testified that plaintiff’s complaints were subjective and he did not decide plaintiff’s credibility and that plaintiff’s claimed disc herniation was most likely caused at work.. [Opp. At 6.] And finally, as noted above, defendant’s biomechanical expert, Dr. Swathi Kode testified that the forces in volved in the accident were not sufficient to cause injury, as conceded by the plaintiff. [Reply Memorandum at 3.] Thus, there was a sufficient basis in the record to support the jury’s finding. Accordingly, the Court denies plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial.
MICHAEL CORPUS v. ASCENCION MARQUEZ,
20STCV41863
Tentative Ruling Re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike /Tax Costs
In this
matter, the defendant was the prevailing party.
Defendant filed a costs bill seeking to recover a variety of costs
incurred during the litigation totaling $137,848.43. Plaintiff moves to strike a number of those
costs claims. The Curt will rule as
follows:
Item No. 1 – Filing and Motion Fees
Plaintiff
objects to the fee claim of $61.65 for defendant’s motion to compel the
testimony of the PMK of Placentia Surgery after that witness failed to appear at
a duly notices deposition. Plaintiff
argues that it was not his fault that the witness did not appear. That
argument is irrelevant to a claim for motion fees. The Court finds that the motion fee was
reasonably necessary to the case and awards defendant $$61.65.
Next,
plaintiff objects to the claim for $51.40 claimed by the defendant related to ordering
copies of 3 MIL’s from the Court when plaintiff did not serve the
defendant. The Court will not allow this
cost. The defendant could simply have
called plaintiff’s counsel and requested copies.
Item No. 2 – Deposition Costs - $27,097.97
Plaintiff
objects to the claim for costs of videotaping depositions taken by the
defendant and to the cost for expediting the transcripts of various experts who
testified at the trial. The Court finds that
the deposition costs are reasonable in preparation for trial. As for the expedited transcript costs, the
Court finds that those costs are reasonable as well. All of the witnesses for whom defendant seeks
deposition costs were important witnesses in this matter. Five of the videotaped depositions were shown
during the trial. One other was the deposition
of the defendant whose videotaping was ordered by the plaintiff. The Court will allow 427,097.97 to the
defendant.
Item No. 8(a) – Ordinary witness fees - $65.00
Plaintiff
objects to the $50.00 witness fee for Aquila Medical Management and for an
employee of Placentia Surgery Center.
The $15.00 fee was paid in connection with a subpoena for the records of
Redlands Community Hospital, another treating facility of the plaintiff. The $50.00 witness fee for Aquila Medical was
paid in connection with the deposition of the PMK for the medical billing records
of Placentia Surgery and was clearly reasonable and necessary to this litigation. The $15.00 was necessary to secure the
billing records of Redlands Community Hospital.
Item 8(b) – Expert Witness Fees - $94,534.48
Plaintiff
challenges the expert witness fee claim by the defendant as excessive and
requests the Court to reduce those fees to those that are necessary and
reasonable. The Court will allow the
fees as requested. Plaintiff’s objection
to the fees for defense expert Dr. Dillin in the amount of $42,,663.00 is based
on his trial testimony where he gave an estimate of $25,000 to that date from
memory. That estimate included his
estimate of 20 hours of document review at $1,000 per hour and trial testimony
of $5,000 based on a ½ day appearance. However, as noted by the defendant, Dr.
Dillin wrote a 243 page report regarding his review of records, Ime and other work
done in preparation for trial. The Court
finds that Dr. Dillin’s fee was reasonable for that work. As for the expert costs for Ms. Flinn-Fowler
and Dr. Swathi Kode, the Court has reviewed their invoices and finds their fees
of $20,062.50 and $25,593.98, respectively, to be reasonable. Accordingly, the Court will allow a total of
$94,534.48 for expert witness fees.
Item No. 6 – Court Reporter Fees -$11,181.30
Plaintiff
objects to the claim for court reporter fees on the ground that transcripts
were not expressly ordered by the Court
as required by C.C.P. sec. 1033.5(b)(5). However, Govt. Code section 68,086(d)(2)
provides that the costs of a pro tem reporter arranged by a party when an official
court reporter is not available, the cost for the pro tem reporter “. . .are
recoverable as provided in subdivision (c),” which provides that the costs for
an official court reporter are recoverable.
Here, the invoices of the court reporters make clear that there bills were
for appearances at Court as ordered, not for transcripts. Accordingly, the Court will allow the court
reporter fee in the amount of $11,181.50.
Plaintiff
also objects to the additional reporter fee of $1,125 billed by Coalition Court
Reporter to which plaintiff did not agree prior to trial. The Court finds that the evidence is insufficient
to allow this cost. Accordingly it is
denied.
Conclusion
The
Court will disallow $51.40 from the defendant’s costs bill. The Court will award the balance of the
claimed costs in the amount of $137,797.03.
The Clerk is ordered to amend the judgment accordingly.