Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV36677, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 

IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 

ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.




Case Number: 20STCV36677    Hearing Date: March 1, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

 

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to post an undertaking is GRANTED.

 

Legal Standard 

 

“When the plaintiff in an action or special proceeding resides out of the state, or is a foreign corporation, the defendant may at any time apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1030(a).)  The plaintiff, however, will not be required to file an undertaking unless “there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain judgment in the action or special proceeding.”  (Id., § 1030(b).)  The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit stating the nature and amount of costs and attorney’s fees the defendant has incurred and expects to incur.  (Id.)   

 

If the motion is granted and the plaintiff fails to file the undertaking within the time allowed, the plaintiff’s action or special proceeding shall be dismissed as to the defendant in whose favor the order requiring the undertaking was made.  (Code Civ. Proc., §1030(d).)  “The determinations of the court under this section have no effect on the determination of any issues on the merits of the action or special proceeding and may not be given in evidence nor referred to in the trial of the action or proceeding.”  (Id., §1030(f).) 

 

The second prong of the statute requires that a defendant establish that it is “reasonably possible” that it would obtain a judgment. (Baltayan v. Estate of Getemyan (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1427, 1432 [A defendant is “not required to show that there [is] no possibility that [plaintiff] [can] win at trial, but only that it [is] reasonably possible that [defendant] [will] win.”].) 

 

Discussion 

 

Defendant moves for a court order requiring Plaintiff to post an undertaking in the amount of $22,500 on grounds that Plaintiff resides outside of California and there is a reasonable possibility Defendant will prevail in this action. 

 

As an initial matter, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s opposition is untimely and should be disregarded.

 

“A trial court has broad discretion to overlook late-served papers and to resolve the matter on the merits.   (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 162, 168 [“(E)ven if the service had been untimely, the trial court was vested with discretion to overlook the defect”]; see also Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc.  (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [“A trial court has broad discretion under rule 3.1300(d) of the Rules of Court to refuse to consider papers served and filed beyond the deadline without a prior court order finding good cause for late submission.”].) The court exercises its discretion and considers the merits of the opposition. Further, Defendant has not argued it was prejudiced by the opposition being one day late and has filed a reply on the merits.

 

Plaintiff’s Residency 

 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not a resident of California and that she lives in Colorado. (Dean Decl., 5; Exh. A.) Plaintiff concedes this point.

 

Reasonable Possibility of Obtaining Judgment 


Plaintiff alleges that
she was walking out to the parking lot at Westfield Santa Anita and down the cement stairs, when she slipped and fell due to inadequate lighting and the stairs being wet.

 

Defendant argues that there is a reasonable probability of prevailing in this case because at deposition, Plaintiff testified that (1) her accident occurred “just outside” of Clarks Shoes where she was working at the time and since July of 2019, (2) since she began working for the Mall, her designated parking lot was in the parking lot, down this same set of stairs which she had “exclusively” used, (3) before the night of the incident, Plaintiff had walked down this same set of stairs in the dark before and never needed to use a flashlight, (4) on the night of Plaintiff’s accident, she did not observe that the condition of the stairs was any different from when she usually used those stairs, (5) she was carrying a can of coconut water in her hands, (6) there was a handrail on the stairs but Plaintiff did not use the handrail because she believes handrails are dirty, and (7) it had rained on the day of the incident. (Dean Decl., 6; Exh. B.) As such, Defendant argues that Plaintiff admits she frequently used the same set of stairs, never felt the need to use a flashlight, was holding an object in her hands, and was aware of but did not use handrails to her left and right. Defendant argues that without evidence that Defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of its premises, and in the face of Plaintiff’s comparative fault, there can be no liability.

 

Defendant has met its burden of showing a reasonable possibility of prevailing. Plaintiff’s acknowledgement that she walked down these stairs often and she never needed a flashlight and that was holding an object in her hands and did not use the guardrail, at a minimum, show that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Defendant is only required to provide facts demonstrating that it is reasonably possible that he will prevail; Defendant is not required to show that there is no possibility that Plaintiff could win at trial.  (Baltayan v. Estate of Getemyan (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1427, 1432.)  

 

               Costs

 

Defense counsel estimates that the costs through trial will total at least $22,500. This sum includes the cost of (1) Deposition of non-expert witnesses, including Plaintiff’s witnesses, defending depositions of Defendant’s employees or person(s) most knowledgeable/qualified: $2,500; (2) Filing and motion fees: $1,000; (3) Preparation of trial exhibits: $750; (4) Medical expert fees: $10,000 after expiration of the Statutory Offer to Compromise; (5) Liability expert fees: $7,000; and (6) the costs associated with obtaining Plaintiff’s medical records via subpoena: $1,250. (Dean Decl., 8.)

As to expert fees, on December 8, 2022, Defendant served a statutory offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 998, which has since expired. The offer to compromise was not accepted. (Dean Decl., 7.)

Plaintiff argues Defendant’s estimated costs are not reasonable and that Defendant failed to particularize the costs. Plaintiff argues that Defendant offers no facts as to why the costs are reasonable or what evidence they are based on. Plaintiff contends that Defendant does not itemize the costs and just provides a general calculation.

However, Code of Civil Procedure § 1030(b) only requires Defendant to state the nature and amount of costs the defendant expects to incur.  Plaintiff has not cited to any proposition that states evidence is required to prove the amount of costs it anticipates will be required. Further, Defendant cannot itemize costs that have yet to be incurred; Defendant can only estimate. Without any challenge specifying why these costs are not reasonable, the Court finds the estimated costs to be reasonable.

 

Conclusion 

 

Based on the foregoing, the motion to compel Plaintiff to post an undertaking is GRANTED.

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.