Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 19STCV02984, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 19STCV02984 Hearing Date: May 7, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 29, 2019, Plaintiff David Weinberger (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Jacob Lawrence Kaster (“Defendant”) and Does 1-5 for motor vehicle tort.
On April 16, 2019, Defendant filed an answer.
On July 21, 2022, the case was assigned to the Hon. Ernest M. Hiroshige in Department 70 of the Metropolitan Courthouse for trial. On August 25, 2022, after a jury trial, Judge Hiroshige entered judgment for Defendant and ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s costs.
On September 14, 2023, Judge Hiroshige denied Plaintiff’s motion to strike costs and awarded Defendant $106,770.46 in costs. The September 14, 2023 minute order stated: “The Court finds the Plaintiff's contention regarding the Memorandum of Costs (Summary) was a draft is unreasonable and not persuasive since the Memorandum of Costs (Summary) is 83 pages in length and the last page is the Declaration of Service dated February 21, 2023; therefore the Memorandum of Costs (Summary) is authentic and started the time for filing of a Motion to Strike or Motion to Tax Costs.”
On October 2, 2023, the case was reassigned to Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.
On April 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment of costs, to be heard in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse on May 7, 2024. On April 9, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition. On April 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to set aside the cost award.
Defendant asks the Court to deny the request.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff asks the Court for relief from the cost award because (1) Plaintiff is experiencing financial hardship, (2) the Court entered the award as the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, (3) Defendant did not timely file a memorandum of costs, and (4) the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting evidence at trial.
“As a general rule, a trial judge cannot overturn the order of another trial judge.” (Paul Blanco’s Good Car Company Auto Group v. Superior Court (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 86, 99 (Paul Blanco’s).) This long-standing principle “ ‘is founded on the inherent difference between a judge and a court and is designed to ensure the orderly administration of justice.’ ” (Ibid.) “Because a superior court is a single entity comprised of member judges, “ ‘ “one member of that court cannot sit in review on the actions of another member of that same court.” ’ ” (Ibid.)
“ ‘For one superior court judge, no matter how well intended, even if correct as a matter of law, to nullify a duly made, erroneous ruling of another superior court judge places the second judge in the role of a one-judge appellate court,’ ” and “ ‘ “it would be only a matter of days until we would have a rule of [person] rather than a rule of law.” ’ ” (Paul Blanco’s, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at pp. 99-100.) “Furthermore, to countenance such a practice would lead to judge-shopping—venturing from judge to judge until a favorable ruling is obtained—which ‘ “would instantly breed lack of confidence in the integrity of the courts.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 100.)
“A narrow exception to this venerable rule applies when the record shows that the original judge is no longer ‘available.’ ” (Paul Blanco’s, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at p. 100, quoting Davcon, Inc. v. Roberts & Morgan (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1361.) “The unavailability of the original judge is established if, for example, the judge has retired.” (Ibid.) “Unavailability is not demonstrated, however, by the mere fact that the original judge was transferred to another department of the same court.” (Ibid. [judge was not unavailable when case was transferred to another judge’s department but original judge remained listed as a judge on superior court’s website].)
Here,
the case was transferred out of Judge Hiroshige’s department because the trial
proceedings were completed. However,
Judge Hiroshige remains listed as a judge on the superior court’s website. This Court lacks authority to second-guess Judge Hiroshige's rulings.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff David Weinberger’s motion for relief from the cost award.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.