Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV20353, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV20353 Hearing Date: February 26, 2025 Dept: 50
|
FRANK LEE, Plaintiff, vs. PARAMOUNT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et
al. Defendants. |
Case No.: |
20STCV20353 |
|
Hearing
Date: |
February
26, 2025 |
|
|
Hearing
Time: |
10:00 a.m. |
|
|
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE THE MEMORANDUM OF COSTS FILED BY DEFENDANT PARAMOUNT UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT |
||
Background
Plaintiff Frank Lee
(“Plaintiff”) filed this action on May 28, 2020 against Defendant Paramount
Unified School District (“Defendant”). The Complaint alleges causes of action
for
(1) discrimination on the basis of
race; (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to prevent
discrimination and retaliation; and (4) disability discrimination.
On
March 22, 2023, a Memorandum of Costs was filed in this matter.
Plaintiff
now moves for an order “to strike the entire Memorandum of Costs filed by
Defendant, Paramount Unified School District.” Defendant filed a
“non-opposition” to the motion.
Discussion
As
set forth above, Plaintiff moves for an order “to strike the entire Memorandum of Costs filed by
Defendant, Paramount Unified School District.” (Mot. at p. 2:4-5.) As an
initial matter, in his declaration in support of Defendant’s “non-opposition to
the motion,” Defendant’s counsel indicates that “[a]fter meeting and
conferring, and agreeing to withdraw Defendant’s memorandum of costs, on April
25, 2024, my office filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Memorandum of Costs.” (Williams
Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendant’s counsel states that “[o]ur office served Plaintiff
with the Notice of Withdrawal of Memorandum of Costs that same April 25, 2024.”
(Williams Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant’s April 25, 2024 “Notice of Withdrawal of
Memorandum of Costs” indicates that Defendant “withdraws its Memorandum of Cost
against plaintiff, Frank Lee and/or his counsel.” (Notice of Withdrawal at p.
1:21.)
Defendant asserts that
accordingly, Plaintiff’s instant motion is moot. Plaintiff did not file any reply
in support of the motion, and thus does not dispute that the motion is moot.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied as
moot.
Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this
ruling.
DATED:
Hon. Teresa A.
Beaudet
Judge, Los
Angeles Superior Court