Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 19STCV16913 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 19STCV16913, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT SE-C LAW & MOTION PROCEDURES ARE AS FOLLOWS: APPEARANCES: The Court will hear oral arguments on all matters at the scheduled time of hearing. If all counsel intend to submit on the Tentative Order and do not want oral argument, please advise the clerk, in Department “C”, by calling (562-345-3702). If all sides submit on the Tentative Order and the clerk is so advised, the Tentative Order will become the final order of the court and the prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. If the Moving and Responding parties do not agree to submit on the Tentative Order, the motion will be called as calendared for hearing. There is no need to contact Department “C”, as the matter will remain on calendar for hearing. If the Moving party does not call Department “C” to submit on the Tentative Order and there is no appearance by any party, then the motion(s), at the Court’s discretion, may be taken off calendar without ruling on the motion(s). ORDERS: The minute order reflecting the Court’s Order will constitute the final Order. No additional orders should be submitted to the Court for signature unless required by law or by the Court. Prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. Minute orders, which constitute the final Order of the Court, will only be sent to the parties via U.S. mail for the following: OSC re: sanctions, OSC re: contempt or matters taken under submission after oral arguments or briefing. Counsel or parties may request copies of all other minute orders/final orders either at the clerk’s office or in writing. If a request is in writing, a self-addressed stamped envelope and the appropriate fee for copies shall be submitted.

Case Number: 19STCV16913 Hearing Date: September 14, 2022 Dept: SEC

ARGUELLO v. ROJAS

CASE NO.: 19STCV16913

HEARING: 09/14/22

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant/Cross-Complainant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and Defendant CITY OF SOUTH GATE’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees as Costs is DENIED without prejudice. At this time, the County of Los Angeles is entitled to costs in the amount of $24,925.88 and the City of South Gate is entitled to costs in the amount of $2,749.04 as reflected in the Memorandums of Costs filed on July 29, 2022.

Moving Party to give Notice.

On June 24, 2022, this Court GRANTED COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (“County”) and CITY OF SOUTH GATE’s (“City”) (collectively “Defendants”) motion for summary judgment.

Now, Defendants move for the recovery of defense costs under CCP §1038. County seeks $92,595.80 in attorney’s fees and expert witness fees. City seeks $32,941.10 in attorney’s fees. Defendants contend that they were wrongfully sued for a dangerous condition of public property where none existed as a matter of law. Plaintiff alleged that the Subject Accident was caused by a “lagging yellow” light, when in fact, the evidence showed that the true cause of accident was the result of driver error.

CCP §1038 provides that in a proceeding under the Government Claims Act, the court may, upon motion and at the time of granting summary judgment, determine wither the plaintiff brought the proceeding with reasonable good cause and in the good faith belief that there was a justiciable controversy under the facts and law; if the court determines that the proceeding was not brought in good faith and with reasonable cause, an additional issue shall be decided as to the defense costs. Section 1038 authorizes an award of reasonable fees and costs to the prevailing defendant(s) not only where the action was filed in bad faith, but also where the plaintiff maintained the action without good cause. (Curtis v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1243, 1250.)

Here, Plaintiff alleged and relied on the theory of a “lagging yellow light” despite the fact that no evidence to support that condition exists. Then Plaintiff changed his theory on summary judgment and argued that traffic conditions were bad in the area where the Subject Accident occurred. However, as indicated in the Court’s June 24, 2022 Order, design immunity protects the public entity defendants from that theory. The Court finds that Plaintiff maintained this action without good cause and finds that Defendants’ have established an entitlement to reasonable fees incurred after March 16, 2021—when the County and City answered and began asserting the immunity defenses.

However, the Court intends to DENY the Motion without prejudice for lack of evidentiary support. The Declaration of Adam A. Ainslie filed in support of the Moton fails to give an adequate breakdown of how fees were accrued. As submitted, the Court is unable to decipher whether fees were incurred before and after March 16, 2021.

In addition to the attorney’s fees sought, Defendants also request that this Court award costs normally awarded to a prevailing party under CCP §1038(b), which applies to “expert witness fees, the expense of services of experts, advisers, and consultants in defense of the proceeding.” On July 29, 2022, Defendants filed Memorandums of Costs outlining these sought costs. The Court finds that The City is entitled to costs in the amount of $2,749.04 and the County is entitled to costs in the amount of $24,925.88 as reflected in the Memorandum of Costs.