Judge Matthew C. Braner, Case 37-2019-00061345-CU-PA-CTL 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2019-00061345-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 24, 2023

08/25/2023 09:00:00 AM C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00061345-CU-PA-CTL MONTANO SR. VS. MARTINEZ [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants Daniel Martinez and Leticia Ledesma's motion to strike and tax costs is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

Defendants concede Plaintiffs Mercedes M. Montano, Sr. and Mercedes M. Montano, Jr. are the prevailing parties, but move to strike Plaintiffs entire memorandum of costs based on their failure to obtain a judgment in excess of the $25,000 jurisdictional minimum for unlimited civil cases. Alternatively, Defendants ask the court to award costs in proportion to the judgment and to strike the costs for 'Video Clip Creation' ($891) and 'Other' ($821.19). Plaintiffs seek the full amount of their corrected total costs, $12,557.33.

The court has discretion to determine costs in cases 'other than a limited civil case in accordance with Section 1034 where the prevailing party recovers a judgment that could have been rendered in a limited civil case.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033, subd. (a).) The purpose of this provision is to 'discourage plaintiffs from 'over filing' their cases' and thereby avoid the associated waste of judicial and party resources.

(Valentino v. Elliot Sav-On Gas, Inc. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 692, 701.) Factors a court may consider in the exercise of such discretion include whether the plaintiff reasonably and in good faith assessed his or her chances of recovery beyond the jurisdictional limit when the action was filed, the amount of the recovery in relation to the jurisdictional limit, the amount of costs incurred, and whether (and how much) a percentage of fault was found by the trier of fact against the plaintiff. (Greenberg v. Pacific Tel. & Tel.

Co. (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 102, 108-109.) Applying these factors to this case, the court concludes that Plaintiffs should be awarded some amount of costs, but not the full $12,557.33 requested. First, the court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs' early assessment of the case was entirely in good faith. This case was filed in November 2019 and the car accident from which Plaintiffs' claims arose occurred in September 2018, but Defendants were not served until July 2021. By that time, Plaintiffs and their counsel had plenty of time and opportunity to assess their injuries and make a reasonable evaluation of future medical expenses and non-economic damages, and for the severity of the injuries to be apparent. However, in the statement of damages included with the affidavit of publication, Plaintiffs inflated their claimed damages. Plaintiff Montano, Sr.

claimed future non-economic damages of $1,000,000 and future medical expenses of $250,000, but only $8,940.69 in incurred medical expenses (nearly 3 years after the car accident), and Plaintiff Montano, Jr. claimed future non-economic damages of $200,000, future medical expenses of $100,000, and future loss of earning capacity of $75,000, but only $4,145.44 in incurred medical expenses and $1,218 in lost earnings.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2979275 26 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: MONTANO SR. VS. MARTINEZ [IMAGED] 37-2019-00061345-CU-PA-CTL Second, the final recovery achieved by Plaintiffs is substantially less than the jurisdictional limit, even if the total amount awarded to each plaintiff is treated as a single judgment with respect to the limit, and a significant percentage of fault was found against Plaintiff Montano, Sr. The jury awarded Plaintiffs $20,968.45 in damages and found that Plaintiff Montano, Sr. was 40% at fault; the jury did not award any damages for future pain and suffering, nor for future medical expenses. (ROA #119.) After factoring in the 40% percentage of fault, the final judgment was $13,727.52, which is only approximately 55% of the jurisdictional limit.

Finally, Plaintiffs' recovery is not much greater than their claimed costs of $12,557.33; the difference is only $1,170.19. On its face, awarding costs in an amount greater than 90% of the recovery is problematic.

Accordingly, the court will exercise its discretion and award only a portion of Plaintiffs' claimed costs.

The court will award costs in proportion to the jurisdictional limit by taking the percentage of the recovery relative to the limit (55%) and applying it to the requested costs ($12,557.33), which equals $6,906.53.

Consequently, Plaintiffs are awarded in $6,906.53 in costs as the prevailing parties.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2979275 26