Judge: Lawrence Cho, Case: 20STCV11641, Date: 2023-10-26 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) 260-3501, or via e-mail at samdeptk@lasuperiorcourt.org advising 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 personally or by Court Call.
Case Number: 20STCV11641 Hearing Date: October 26, 2023 Dept: K
CASE
NAME: ESCOBAR
v. ORTUNO
CASE
NUMBER: 20STCV11641
HEARING
DATE: 10/26/23
TENTATIVE RULING
MOTION:
Defendants’ Motion To Tax Costs
HELD: GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART
I.
Background
This
case involved a car accident which occurred in April 2018. Trial began on 7/10/23 and ended on 7/14/23
with a judgment for Plaintiff (“P”) in the amount of $210,811. Plaintiff had submitted an offer to settle
per CCP 998 for less than the amount rendered by the jury. Defendant (“D”) seeks in the instant motion
to tax certain of P’s requested costs.
II.
CHALLENGED
COSTS
A.
Item
1: Filing and Motion Fees: Ex Parte
Filing to Oppose Continuance ($ 60)
D asserts that P’s filing fee for
opposing P’s ex parte application to continue the trial
was
not reasonable or necessary. This Court
disagrees and DENIES the taxing of this filing fee cost.
B.
Item
8: Witness Fees: P Witness George Graf, M.D.
($ 4,375)
Because P recovered more than his
998 offer, he is entitled to his expert witness fees.
CCP
§ 998(d). D objects to this witness
because he was not designated as a retained expert but testified as a
percipient witness that treated P. Percipient
witnesses who provide testimony beyond just retained opinions are considered
lay witnesses entitled only to normal witness fees and not expert fees under CCP
§ 998. Ellenberger v. Karr (1982)
127 Cal.App.3d 423, 428. As such, the
motion to tax this quantity GRANTED in the amount of $ 4,375.
C.
Item
11: Models, Blowups, Photocopies of Exhibits:
Photocopies ($869.04)
Plaintiff seeks this cost for
photocopying trial binders which included Exhibits.
However,
photocopying charges are expressly prohibited reimbursable costs under CCP § 1033.5(b)(3). Photocopies of exhibits are allowed so long
as they were reasonably helpful to the jury.
§ 1033.5(a)(13). As very little
of the trial binders were shown to the jury, let alone helpful to them, D’s motion
to tax these costs is GRANTED in the amount of $ 800, leaving an award
of $ 69.04.
D.
Item
13: Other: Interpreter Fees ($ 990)
Such fees may only be recovered
under CCP 1033.5(a)(12) if “authorized by the court for an indigent person
represented by a qualified legal services project . . . or a pro bono attorney
. . . .” Here, P was represented by
private counsel for profit and as such these costs are taxable in full. GRANTED in the amount of $ 990.
E.
Item
13: Other: Hotel Stays ($ 2,808.11)
This Court exercises its discretion
under CCP 1033.5(c)(4) to deny the award of hotel
costs
sought by P. These expenses were unnecessary
and were for the convenience of counsel not to have to drive from their
residences or offices. Motion to tax is GRANTED
in the full amount of $2,808.11.
III. CONCLUSION
Defendant’s Motion to Tax P’s Costs
is GRANTED in the following amounts rounded off to the nearest dollar:
$ 4,375
$ 800
$ 990
$ 2,808
___________
$
8,973 TOTAL TAXED
Thus,
of the $37,154.85 in costs sought, that sum shall be taxed/reduced by $ 8,973,
thereby leaving a net cost award of $ 28,121.85.