Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: BC700148, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC700148    Hearing Date: October 17, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Monfort’s motion to recover costs is GRANTED.    

On March 1, 2017, American Technologies, Inc. (ATI) initiated this action against Carolyn Lowd Daniels and Bleaker Daniels. The complaint is for 1) breach of contract; 2) common count; 3) violation of civil code § 8800; and 4) foreclosure of mechanic lien. 

On November 17, 2017, Cross-Complainants the Daniels filed a Cross-Complaint. On January 26, 2018, Cross-Complainants filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint against ATI, Clinton Monfort, Jehovany Berraza, TBG Construction Company, Tiara Imperial Homeowners Association, U.S.A.A. Insurance, and Mercury Insurance Group. 

Now, Monfort seeks to recover costs from the Daniels pursuant to CCP section 998.

Discussion

            Monfort seeks $6,886.00 in costs pursuant to CCP section 998. CCP section 998, subdivision (c)(1) provides:

…If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her post offer costs and shall pay the defendant's costs from the time of the offer…

            Here, the Daniels failed to obtain a verdict that exceeded Monfort’s pre-trial CCP 988 Offer of Settlement and thus is entitled to recover costs.

            In opposition, the Daniels do not challenge Monforts right to recover costs, but argue that Item No. 4 and Item No. 8(b)(1) should be struck. More specifically, the Daniels argue:

1. Item No. 4. The Court should tax Plaintiffs' deposition costs because the presented on the cross complaint was one of a pure question of damages, Sharon Coleman’s deposition was not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. Moreover, the amounts sought are unreasonable and excessive.

2. Item No. 8(b)(1). The Court should tax the expert costs as Steven Hill was an unnecessary witness and was not called at the time of trial on any substantive issue in this matter. Further, the amounts sought are ambiguous and unsupported.

            In reply, Monfort contends that both costs were reasonably incurred. In support, Monfort notes that to be properly prepared for trial, Monfort was required to retain his own damages expert (Mr. Hill) and depose Plaintiffs’ expert (Ms. Coleman) to address cost of repair claims made by the Daniels due to water intrusion. As such, whether or not they actually testified is relevant. Both experts were designated by the Parties prior to trial, and were designated as witnesses on the final pre-trial “Joint Witness List.” Moreover, Ms. Coleman’s fees were paid per CCP 2034 and were approved by the Daniels’ counsel.

            The Court agrees that these costs were reasonably and necessarily incurred. These costs were clearly connected to addressing the Daniels’ repair claim. The fact that they did not actually testify at trial does not change this. To conclude otherwise would create an incentive for attorneys to unnecessarily extend the length of trial to present all available evidence in order to recover the costs incurred to obtain that evidence. The Daniels rejected Monfort’s 998 Offer, and to be properly prepared for trial, Monfort retained his own damages expert and deposed Plaintiffs’ expert. Those costs are reasonably incurred.

            Based on the foregoing, Monfort’s motion to recover costs is granted.     

It is so ordered.

Dated:  October    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.