Judge Lawrence Cho, Case Number: 22STCV10002, Date: 2024-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lawrence Cho, Case: 22STCV10002, Date: 2024-08-02 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: 22STCV10002 Hearing Date: August 2, 2024 Dept: K

CASE NAME: JANIK GALSTIAN v. RAJIV THANARATNAM

CASE NUMBER: 22STCV10002

HEARING DATE: 8/2/24

TRIAL DATES: 5/6/24 to 5/13/24

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike or Tax Defendants’ Costs

HELD: GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART

I. Background

This was a car accident whereby defendant Arun Ryan Thanaratnam (“D”) rear ended Plaintiff Janik Galstian (“P”) at a red light. D admitted liability but contested damages. After a 5 day jury trial, on 5/13/24, the jury awarded judgment in favor of P in the amount of $15K.

However, on 4/29/24, D offered a CCP 998 offer to compromise in the amount of $50,001. Since P did not receive a verdict in excess of that offer, D is entitled to his § 998 costs. On 7/15/24, D filed a cost memorandum seeking $95,507.70 in costs. P now seeks to strike D’s Cost Memorandum or in the alternative to tax D’s requested costs.

Hearing on this matter was originally set for July 26, 2024. As such, D’s opposition brief was due 9 court days before, that is, no later than July 15, 2024. D’s Opposition was filed on July 23, 2024, more than 8 days late. However, there was a ransomware attack on the LASC system and no e-filings were possible from 7/19 thru 7/23. So, giving D the benefit of the doubt that he intended to file on 7/19 but was precluded from doing so due to the system outage, P’s Opp Brief was only 4 days late. P accordingly moves to strike D’s Opp. Brief for being untimely. This Court agrees and GRANTS such motion. As such, this Court will not consider D’s arguments regarding the prior 12/15/22 § 998 offer to compromise for $25,000. In any event, that offer was made by prior defendant RAJIV THANARATNAM only and therefore did not apply to eventual trial defendant Arun Ryan Thanaratnam.

II. ANALYSIS

A. P’s Motion to Strike D’s Cost Memo

As a threshold matter, P gives no basis to strike D’s Cost Memorandum in its entirety and therefore such motion is DENIED.

B. SPECIFIC CHALLENGED COSTS

Item 1: Filing and Motion Fees ($1,028.15)

P is correct in that both D’s answer (filed on 5/3/22) and demurrer (filed on 4/25/23) were

incurred prior to D’s the § 998 motion and therefore not awardable. These costs will be taxed by $930, leaving an award of $98.15.

Item 2: Jury fees ($688.63)

$150 of these fees sought were pre-998 offer and therefore will be taxed. The net jury

fees awardable to D is $538.63.

Item 4: Deposition Costs ($1,673.20)

All these deposition costs were incurred pre-§ 998 offer and will therefore be taxed in

full, leaving no award to P’s for this item.

Item 5: Service of Process Costs ($1152.41))

All these costs were also incurred pre-offer and will also be taxed in full, leaving no

award for this item.

Item 8: Expert Witness Fees ($64,511.34)

$21,574.34 of these fees were incurred pre-offer (including non-recoverable Hodson PI services) and will therefore be taxed. P’s claims that the remaining expert witness fees should be taxed as unnecessary and/or excessive are all rejected. Expert fees in the amount of $42,937 shall be awarded to D.

Item 9: Court Ordered Transcripts ($25,686.40)

Although this is a recoverable expense under CCP § 1033.5(a)(9), this Court ordered no trial transcripts and so this amount shall be taxed in full and none awarded to D.

Item 13: Interpreter Fees ($495)

This item was also incurred pre-offer and shall therefore be taxed in full and no amount awarded to D.

III. CONCLUSION

P’s motion to tax D’s Cost Memorandum is GRANTED in the amount of $51,661.35. As such, costs are awarded to D in the net amount of $43,846.35 [$95,507.70 - $51,661.35 = $43,846.35]. Subtracting the $15,000 credit from the jury’s award to P, the net judgment in costs awarded to D is $28,846.35.