On 01/11/2017 HENRIQUEZ, ROSA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against PINEDA, EDGAR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.
Disposed - Other Disposed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
KENNETH YOO LAW GROUP
LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY J LUCETT
EDGERTON ROBERT HAMILTON
7/16/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Memor...)
1/11/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet
1/11/2017: Complaint - Auto
4/6/2017: (name extension) - PROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED
6/21/2018: Notice (name extension) - of unavailability
7/6/2018: Opposition (name extension) - by plaintiffs to defendants' motion in limine no. 1 - exclude evidence
12/12/2018: Association of Attorney - Association of Attorney
12/19/2018: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Correct Arbitration Award
12/28/2018: Reply (name extension) - Reply to plaintiff's opposition to motion to correct arbitration award
1/8/2019: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: Defendant's Re-Notice of Motion to correct arbitration award
1/10/2019: Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim or Pending Action or Disposition of Proc - Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim or Pending Action or Disposition of Pro
1/18/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Status of Minor's Compromise and Moti...)
1/18/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order Re Reassignment Pursuant to Recusal) of 01/18/2019
1/18/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re Reassignment Pursuant to Recusal)
2/14/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling
2/14/2019: Order Approving Compromise of Disputed Claim or Pending Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgme - Order Approving Compromise of Disputed Claim or Pending Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgm
2/14/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Correcting Arbitration Award; Heari...)
5/7/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other to Strike Plaintiffs' Memorandum of...) of 05/07/2019
Hearingat 0900 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion - Other (name extension)Read MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Motion - Other to Strike Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs scheduled for 10/10/2019 at 09:00 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Memor...)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Memor...) of 07/16/2019; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion - Other to Strike Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs scheduled for 08/01/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 10/10/2019 09:00 AMRead MoreRead Less
DocketOpposition TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS; Filed by: ROSA HENRIQUEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration OF STEPHEN D. WEGMAN IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS; Filed by: ROSA HENRIQUEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice DEFENDANT EDGAR PINEDA?S NOTICE OF RECENT AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF?S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; Filed by: EDGAR PINEDA (Defendant); As to: ROSA HENRIQUEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketUpdated -- Amended Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs: Name Extension: blank; Exact Name: Amended Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs; As To Parties: removedRead MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Motion - Other to Strike Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs scheduled for 08/01/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketDEMAND FOR JURY FILED. DEMAND FOR JURY FILED.Read MoreRead Less
DocketJURY FEE DEPOSIT RECEIVEDRead MoreRead Less
DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT MADE FOR FIRST PAPERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $370.00 BY THE CIVIL DEPOSIT MADE FOR FIRST PAPERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $370.00 BY THE DEFENDANT EDGAR PINEDA ON 4/25/17. RECEIPT# CCH520411050.Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILEDRead MoreRead Less
DocketA/C - COMPLAINT FILED REASON: TYPO CORRECTIONRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILEDRead MoreRead Less
DocketNON-JURY TRIAL SET FOR 07/10/18, 08:30 AM, DEPT 77Read MoreRead Less
DocketOSC SET 01/13/20, 08:30 AM, DEPT. 77 PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDERRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by:Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FILED - AUTO Filing Fee: 370.00Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: 17K00814 Hearing Date: December 10, 2019 Dept: 94
MOTION TO STRIKE COSTS
The Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs, filed on February 20, 2019, is stricken.
After Plaintiff Rosa Henriquez (“Plaintiff Henriquez”) and Juan Sandoval (“minor Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Edgar Pineda (“Defendant”) on January 11, 2017, the parties proceeded to arbitration to resolve their dispute. On October 9, 2018, the arbitrator issued an award in favor of Plaintiff Henriquez in the amount of $21,792.00. On February 14, 2019, the Court corrected the arbitration award by reducing it to $15,000 and approved minor Plaintiff’s petition to approve minor compromise.
On February 20, 2019, Plaintiff Henriquez filed a Memorandum of Costs asking for $6,614.65 in costs. In response, Defendant filed a Motion to Strike Costs on March 12. Plaintiff Henriquez then filed an Opposition on April 18, and Defendant replied on April 30.
On May 7, 2019, the Court placed Defendant’s off-calendar because neither party appeared. At that time, the Court’s tentative order was it could not rule on Defendant’s motion because Defendant had shown that the controlling arbitration agreement did not provide for costs and Plaintiff had not provided evidence that CCP § 998, or any other statute, had been satisfied to authorize Plaintiff recovering costs.
On May 8, 2019, Defendant filed an Amended Notice of Motion to Strike Costs. On July 9, Plaintiff filed a new opposition. On July 16, the hearing date was continued from August 1 to October 10. On October 7, the hearing date was continued to December 10. On October 3, Defendant filed a new reply.
II. Legal Standard
“Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum.” (CRC 3.1700(b).) “If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. [Citations.]” (Sanford v. Rasnick (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1121, 1128-1129.) “This procedure provides an orderly and efficient way of placing disputed costs at issue on a line item basis.” (612 South LLC v. Laconic Ltd. Partnership (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1285.)
The $6,614.65 in requested costs is composed of the following: $370 for filing and motion fees, $1,130.19 for deposition costs, $130 for service of process, $1,250 for witness fees, $906 for interpreter fees, and $2,828.46 for unspecified other. (Memorandum of Costs.)
Initially, the Court reviews whether Defendant has met his initial burden of properly objecting to the requested costs, thereby shifting the burden to Plaintiff Henriquez to justify the requested costs. As previously explained in the Court’s May 7, 2019 tentative order, Defendant shows Plaintiff is not entitled to costs based on the Arbitration Agreement, and therefore, Defendant carries his burden. (See Amended Motion, Edgerton Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A [agreement]; Ling v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1254 [“Arbitration agreements are governed by their own attorney fees and costs provisions.”].) Thus, the burden of proof is now shifted to Plaintiff Henriquez to justify the requested costs. Specifically, Plaintiff must show some other basis, besides the agreement, to show entitlement to costs.
Here, Plaintiff asserts entitlement to costs under CCP section 998. Plaintiff raised this argument in the original opposition. In the Court’s initial tentative ruling, the Court determined Plaintiff had provided no evidence that offer was made and determined Plaintiff also failed to demonstrate that the requested costs in the Memorandum of Costs were incurred postoffer, since Section 998 only permits postoffer costs. Thus, the Court determined Plaintiff could not demonstrate that he has satisfied the requirements of the statute.
The Court finds the same issues exist in Plaintiff’s new opposition regarding entitlement to costs under CCP section 998. First, Plaintiff provides no evidence that Plaintiff served a section 998 offer on Defendant. (Martinez v. Brownco Construction Co. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1014, 1020 [“As indicated, section 998 provides that a plaintiff may recover postoffer costs of expert witness services if: (1) the plaintiff makes an offer to compromise that conforms to the statutory time and content requirements….”].) Plaintiff’s assertion in the briefs that Plaintiff made the offer is insufficient. (Tisher v. California Horse Racing Bd. [Citations.]”].) Thus, Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirement that Plaintiff make an offer of compromise to Defendant. Second, Plaintiff provides no evidence that the requested costs in the Memorandum of Costs were incurred postoffer. (See CCP § 998 [awarding “postoffer” costs].)
Thus, Plaintiff fails to show entitlement to costs under section 998.
Plaintiff also asserts entitlement to costs under CCP section 1032. This is a new argument that was not made in Plaintiff’s original opposition. While Defendant contends this argument is not responsive to the Court’s original tentative ruling (Reply, 2:9), Defendant filed a new motion (as opposed to setting a new hearing date for the motion taken off-calendar on May 7, 2019), and thus, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s entire new opposition.
CCP section 1032(b) provides, “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” Only costs and fees incurred in judicial proceedings to enforce an arbitration award are recoverable by the prevailing party as a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1293.2 [providing that CCP section 1032, among other sections, govern award of costs]; Austin v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1812, 1815-1816 [interpreting CCP section 1293.2 as “the Legislature has distinguished between costs incurred in an arbitration proceeding and costs incurred in superior court to enforce an arbitration award, allowing costs to the prevailing party only in the latter.”].)
Thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to costs in the arbitration proceeding under section 1032 because a prevailing party is only entitled to costs incurred in the judicial proceeding. The Memorandum of Costs does not appear to include any costs incurred post-arbitration. Thus, section 1032 does not appear to apply to any costs listed in the Memorandum of Costs.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has not carried her burden to show entitlement to costs listed in the Memorandum of Costs.
For the stated reasons, the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs, filed on February 20, 2019, is stricken.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.