Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV06597, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06597    Hearing Date: November 12, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On September 12, 2024, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Jennifer Getz and Kay Tornborg, in their capacities as the Co-Administrators of the Estate of George P. Abrahams, and against Defendant Benjamin Goldwasser.

On September 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum of costs.

On October 17, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to tax costs.  Defendant asks the Court to strike or to reduce Plaintiffs’ requested costs that were incurred after Defendant made a section 998 statutory offer to compromise on March 22, 2023.

If a plaintiff rejects a defendant’s settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the plaintiff may not recover his post-offer costs and must pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 998, subd. (c)(1).)

Defendant’s 998 offer was for a total sum of $13,500.00, with each party to bear their own costs and attorney fees.  (Pongracz Decl., Ex. A.)  Defendant argues that the 998 offer far exceeds the value of Plaintiffs’ judgment because they did not receive any monetary award and the Court found that the cost of removing the encroaching fence and wall was $3,425.00.  (Motion at p. 4.)

Plaintiffs argue that the monetary value of what they received by way of the judgment is more favorable than the 998 offer, and they did not seek an away of monetary damages.  (Opposition at p. 2.)  The Court’s judgment ordered (1) Plaintiffs were as of the date the complaint was filed in this action the owners of the residential property; (2) Defendant has no easement, equitable or otherwise, over any part of Plaintiffs’ property; (3) the location of the properties’ boundaries is established through specific surveys; (4) the wood fence and garden walls encroach on Plaintiffs’ property; (5) Defendant must remove the encroachments at his own cost and restore possession to Plaintiffs; and (6) Defendant shall refrain from interfering with Plaintiffs’ right of possession of the property.  The Court deemed Plaintiffs the prevailing parties entitled to costs.

When a 998 offer contains only a monetary offer but the relief recovered is both monetary and nonmonetary, the trial court must consider the offer in light of the totality of the recovery.  (Arias v. Katella Townhouse Homeowners Assn., Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 847, 856.)  The Court may put a monetary value on the injunctive relief.  (Ibid.)

Defendant contends that the value of the judgment is $3,425.00, the cost for demolishing the fence and walls.  (Reply at p. 2.)  But Plaintiffs did not obtain only the removal of the encroachments.  Plaintiffs obtained a judgment ordering that they are the owners of the property, Defendant has no easement, and Defendant may not interfere with Plaintiffs’ right of possession.  The monetary value of this relief is the value of the property that Defendant was wrongfully encroaching upon.  During trial, Defendant’s appraiser testified that the reasonable value of a permanent easement on the property was $13,500.00.  (Final Statement of Decision at p. 12.)

Plaintiffs calculate their preoffer costs to be $9,867.95.  (Gottesman Decl. ¶ 6.)  This amount must be added to the amount of the 998 offer, resulting in a total of $23,367.95.  (See Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1184 [“By specifying postoffer costs are excluded for purposes of determining whether plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment, the statute necessarily implies preoffer costs are included.”].)

The $13,500.00 offer with each side bearing their own costs is less favorable than the value of Plaintiffs’ actual award (property valued at $13,500.00) plus their preoffer costs.

The motion to tax costs is DENIED.  Plaintiffs shall recover $21,696.02 in costs from Defendant, pursuant to their memorandum of costs.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 12th day of November 2024