Judge: Lawrence Cho, Case: BC692630, Date: 2022-09-21 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: BC692630    Hearing Date: September 21, 2022    Dept: K

CASE NAME:           GEVORGYAN v. PANIAGUA

CASE NUMBER:                             BC692630

HEARING DATE:                                                   9/21/22                          

TRIAL DATE:                      5/17/22 TO 5/26/22

______________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION:  Defendant’s Motion to Amend Judgment in Favor of Defendant

HELD:        GRANTED

I.                    BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            This was a rear-end car accident collision case where Defendant (“D”) admitted liability and only Plaintiff’s (“P”) damages were tried to verdict.  P won a judgment for $15,125, which failed to exceed D’s settlement offer under CCP § 998 of $75,000.  

            The following is a chronology of relevant dates to this motion:

            D brings this current motion to amend the Judgment to reflect Judgment for D in the amount of $ 32,931.15, which is comprised of D’s 998 costs ($ 48,056.15) minus the jury’s damages award to P ($15,125).

II.                ANALYSIS

            P does not contest that D is entitled to § 998 costs nor that D is entitled to judgment in this matter since her § 998 costs exceed the damages awarded to P.  Instead, P opposes the motion on the grounds that the amount of expert fees sought by D, particularly that of Drs. Spoonamore and Tsuruda, were excessive.  However, D is correct in that P’s assertions regarding the amount of these expert fees were waived when P missed the deadline to file a Motion to Tax Costs.  Under CRC § 3.1700(b)(1), “any notice of motion . . . to tax costs must be served and filed within 15 days after service of the cost memorandum.”  That 15 day period will be extended if the Cost Memorandum was served by mail (+ 5 days) or via electronic service ( + 2 days).  Here, D’s Cost Memorandum was filed on 7/12/22 and according to the attached Proof of Service, served on P via both mailing and electronic service.  Giving P the greater 5 day extension for mailing under CCP § 1013(a), that gave P 20 days to move to tax costs, which period expired on 8/1/22 without any such motion.  P’s allegations of excessive expert witness fees were not filed until 9/7/22 in the Declaration of Marina Pelikyan in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Amend Judgment in Favor of Defendant. 

Pursuant to CRC 3.17.200(b)(4), “[a]fter the time has passed for a motion to . . . tax costs . . . the clerk must immediately enter the costs on the judgment.” 

            As such, P’s attacks on D’s Cost Memorandum are rejected as untimely.  NOTE:  Although P’s challenges to D’s Cost Memorandum were untimely, the Court did nevertheless consider each of P’s arguments as to they’re being excessive as well as D’s assertions to the contrary, and would have found that D’s Cost Memorandum was reasonable and necessary with respect to witnesses Spoonamore and Tsuruda.

III.                  ORDER

            Judgment in this matter is amended to reflect Judgment for D in the amount of $32,931.15 [Cost Memo amount of $ 48,056.15 minus Judgment amount of $15,125].