Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: BC715051, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC715051    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to tax costs is DENIED IN PART, GRANTED IN PART.  The Court orders only $356 in costs taxed, reducing the overall recoverable cost sum to $7,141.70.

On July 30, 2018, Plaintiff Farbod Melamed (Plaintiff) filed suit against Parallax Health Sciences, Inc., Edward W. Withrow III, Calli Bucci, and Shala Melamed (collectively, Defendants). On November 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against Defendants, alleging: (1) failure to pay wages; (2) failure to indemnify; (3) wrongful termination; (4) retaliation—Government Code 12940, subdivision (h); (5) retaliation—Labor Code section 6310; (6) retaliation—Labor Code section 1102.5; (7) fraud; (8) failure to produce employee file; (9) failure to provide wage statements;  and (10) harassment.

            Now, Defendant moves to tax $4,917.46 in Plaintiff’s costs. 

JNOV

            Defendant argues in reply that this motion should not be ruled upon until the JNOV has been considered. Defendant cites no legal basis for this, but rather argues that costs should be held in abeyance because Defendant is confident that Court will grant her motion for JNOV.

Defendant filed this motion and has the ability to withdraw it from calendar if she feels it is premature. However, given that the Court has already considered the moving papers, it would not serve the interests of judicial economy to continue this motion.

Discussion

            Defendant seeks to tax the following costs:

-         $2,012.43 for the deposition of Defendant

-         $623 in costs for Benham Neydavood’s deposition

-         $356 in costs for Defendant’s failure to appear at deposition

-         $268.48 in costs claims for service of process claims

-         $1,657.55 in other costs.

As for the first challenged cost, Plaintiff submitted billing records to show that the cost incurred to depose Defendant was, in fact, $2,012.43. Such a deposition is indisputably necessary, and reflects the reporter’s costs for attending, recording, and producing a transcript of the deposition which runs at 199 pages long and includes 12 exhibits. The Court finds this cost reasonable, necessary, and actually incurred.

As for the second challenged cost, Plaintiff submitted billing invoices showing that Mr. Nevdavood was actually deposed and that the invoice was for $623. Moreover, Plaintiff submitted an email notifying defense counsel of the deposition and providing him with a copy of the subpoena with an embedded link to attend the deposition. (Mueller Dec. Ex. 4.) The Court finds those costs reasonable, necessary, and actually incurred.

As for the third challenged cost, Plaintiff argues that the cost should be recovered because the deposition was initially scheduled on a date Defendant herself selected, and she did not note her unavailability until the Friday before her deposition was scheduled at 8 pm. While the Court understands the inconvenience of this, Plaintiff concedes that she had at least 30 hours of notice that the deposition would not take place. Plaintiff does not claim that he had already incurred costs which he could not get back at the time he received notice. Rather, he argues that he was entitled to still take a notice of non-appearance because: “Having made it abundantly clear that she was going to actively delay this proceeding, at that point it was reasonable and necessary to proceed with deposition.” (Opp., 4: 21-22.) The Court disagrees, and finds this cost should be taxed.

As for the fourth challenged cost, Plaintiff argues that service of process costs are specifically enumerated as allowable costs, and that he is properly seeking the costs of serving Defendants Calli Bucci and Edward Withrow, both of whom were co-Defendants on the indemnity claim Plaintiff brought against Defendant and prevailed upon. The Court finds these costs reasonable and necessary.

Finally, as for the fifth challenged costs, Plaintiff argues that these “Other” Costs consist of: (1) Document Production ($735.47); (2) Court Call ($250.00); (3) Support Services ($362.08) and (4) Parking ($310.00). (Opp., 15-15.) Plaintiff’s opposition sets forth adequate defense of each of these categories. (See Opp., 7:20- 8:23.) As such, the Court finds these costs to be reasonable and necessary. 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to tax costs is denied in part, granted in part.  The Court orders only $356 in costs taxed, reducing the overall recoverable cost amount to $7,141.70.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2023

   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.