Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00853, Date: 2025-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:    All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

THANK YOU!

Case Number: 22BBCV00853    Hearing Date: April 18, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiffs Mario Munoz, minor Adrian Munoz, minor Michael Munoz, and Josue Herrera (“Plaintiffs”) filed this motor vehicle complaint on October 27, 2022 against Defendants Rebecca Nicole Lennox and Brian Lennox (“Defendants”).  The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence. 

Plaintiffs allege that on February 19, 2022, they were stopped on the I-5 Burbank Boulevard offramp at the stoplight heading northbound when Defendants rear-ended Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

On April 24, 2024, Plaintiffs dismissed with prejudice the complaint as to Plaintiffs Adrian Munoz, Michael Munoz, and Josue Herrera only. 

B.     Relevant Background

The matter came for a jury trial on December 2, 2024 and was concluded on December 17, 2024.   The jury reached a verdict on December 17, 2024. 

            On January 17, 2025, the Judgment on the Special Verdict was entered.  The jury found that Defendant Rebecca Nicole Lennox’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff.  The Jury calculated Plaintiff’s damages in the amount of $14,271.92 total, which accounted for $7,500 in past medical expenses and $6,771.92 in past property damage.  The Court entered the judgment as follows:

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DECREED that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff MARIO MUNOZ against Defendants REBECCA LENNOX and BRIAN LENNOX.

IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DECREED that Defendants REBECCA LENNOX and BRIAN LENNOX recover from Plaintiff MARIO MUNOZ costs and disbursements in the sum of $ TBD BY MOTION.

(1/17/25 Judgment at p.3.) 

            On January 28, 2025, Defendants served the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order by mail and email on January 28, 2025. 

            On February 14, 2025, Defendants filed a Memorandum of Costs seeking $126,247.

            On March 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs seeking $10,589.06.  On April 7, 2025 (after the filing of the instant motion to tax costs), Plaintiff filed a second Memorandum of Costs seeking $10,640.42. 

C.     Motion on Calendar  

On March 20, 2025, Defendants filed a motion for an order striking or alternatively taxing the costs claimed by Plaintiff.

            On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff Mario Munoz filed an opposition brief.

            On April 10, 2025, Defendants filed a reply brief.  

DISCUSSION

Defendants move to strike or tax costs claimed by Plaintiff, arguing that Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs was untimely and Defendants were successful in obtaining a verdict lower than their 998 offer. 

A.    Plaintiff’s Memorandums of Costs

Plaintiff’s Memorandums of Costs seek the following:

The April 7, 2025 Memorandum of Costs is accompanied by a Worksheet.  The Court notes that the March 5, 2025 Memorandum of Costs, the April 7, 2025 Memorandum of Costs, and the opposition papers are not accompanied by receipts.

            As a preliminary matter, the Court declines to award costs on the higher amount sought in the April 7, 2025 Memorandum of Costs that was submitted on the same day as Plaintiff’s opposition brief.  As the time Defendants filed their motion to strike/tax costs, they were only in receipt of the March 5, 2025 Memorandum of Costs. 

B.     Timeliness

“A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first. 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.”  (CRC Rule 3.1700(a)(1).)  CCP §1032(a)(4) defines “prevailing party” as: (1) the party with a net monetary recovery; (2) the defendant in whose favor a dismissal was entered; (3) the defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant recovers any relief; and (4) the defendant against whom plaintiff has not recovered any relief.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s March 5, 2025 Memorandum of Costs was untimely filed because the Notice of Entry of Judgment was mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel on January 28, 2025 and e-mailed on January 28, 2025, such that the last day to file the Memorandum of Costs was February 14, 2025.  In the reply brief, Defendants also provide a copy of the email chain showing that service of the Notice of Entry of Judgment was served by email on “arnold@StateLawFirm.com; Chris@statelawfirm.com; litigation@statelawfirm.com; brian@lawbreiter.com; tatiana@lawbreiter.com; natalie@lawbreiter.com; kamesha@lawbreiter.com” with the attachment “3317 Ntc Entry Judg Spec Verdict.pdf.”  (Reply at Ex. E.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that he never received proper notice of the Notice of Entry of Judgment, such that he cannot be bound by the 15-day deadline.  Plaintiff’s counsel Arnold W. Gross states: “Defendants served a purported Notice of Entry of Judgment on January 28, 2025, reflecting a jury verdict of $14,271.92 in favor of Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff never received this Notice, although Plaintiff acknowledges that the Proof of Service indicates so.”  (Gross Decl., ¶2.)  Other than this one conclusory statement, there is no further explanation or support regarding whether Plaintiff received notice by email or mail. 

Based on the proof of service, it appears that service was properly made on January 28, 2025.  Although Plaintiff’s counsel Arnold W. Gross states that he did not receive the Notice of Entry of Judgment, the documents were served at the “litigation@statelawfirm.com” email and counsel’s office at 15490 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 205, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 (as indicated in Plaintiff’s counsel’s caption on their papers).  Thus, solely based on the papers before the Court at this time, the March 5, 2025 Memorandum of Costs, as well as Plaintiff’s subsequent filing of the April 7, 2025 Memorandum of Costs, is untimely.

The motion to strike/tax costs is granted on the basis that the Memorandum of Costs was not timely filed.  As such, not pre-offer costs will be awarded. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion to strike/tax costs is granted.  As such, no costs shall be awarded to Plaintiff on the March 5, 2025 Memorandum of Costs and April 7, 2025 Memorandum of Costs

Defendants shall provide notice of this order.

DATED:  April 18, 2025                                                        ___________________________

                                                                                          John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court