This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/07/2019 at 00:53:34 (UTC).

ALEXANDER PINTO VS FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/22/2016 ALEXANDER PINTO filed a Contract - Insurance lawsuit against FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is YOLANDA OROZCO. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1341

  • Filing Date:

    08/22/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Insurance

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

YOLANDA OROZCO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Appellant

PINTO ALEXANDER

Respondents, Defendants and Appellants

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE

PINTO ALEXANDER

FARMERS UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

DEWITT ALGORRI & ALGORRI

LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE PALUMBO

PALUMBO BRUCE BENJAMIN

ALGORRI MARK STEVEN

Defendant Attorneys

TILNER MITCHELL CARY

KENDRICK CHRISTOPHER VICTOR

 

Court Documents

DECLARATION OF RICHARD E. MORTON RE: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE

7/23/2018: DECLARATION OF RICHARD E. MORTON RE: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE

DEFENDANT?S SPECIAL PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS OBJECTED TO BY PLAINTIFF

8/31/2018: DEFENDANT?S SPECIAL PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS OBJECTED TO BY PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED STATEMENT OF THE CASE

8/31/2018: PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED STATEMENT OF THE CASE

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S DESIGNATION OF VIDEO TESTIMONY TO BE PLAYED AT TRIAL

9/12/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S DESIGNATION OF VIDEO TESTIMONY TO BE PLAYED AT TRIAL

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE RE RIGHT TO CONTRIBUTION

9/13/2018: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE RE RIGHT TO CONTRIBUTION

ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

9/17/2018: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

Minute Order

9/18/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES FOR THE JURY PURSUANT TO CIVIL RULES OF PROCEDURE, SECTION 625

9/26/2018: DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES FOR THE JURY PURSUANT TO CIVIL RULES OF PROCEDURE, SECTION 625

Minute Order

9/26/2018: Minute Order

CIVIL DEPOSIT

9/27/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

JURY INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN

10/1/2018: JURY INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN

Minute Order

10/1/2018: Minute Order

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (1) BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; ETC

8/22/2016: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (1) BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; ETC

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

12/16/2016: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

PROOF OF SERVICE FOR FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

7/6/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE FOR FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT FARMERS' EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/5/2017: PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT FARMERS' EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

FARMERS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO FARMERS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/14/2017: FARMERS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO FARMERS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Minute Order

10/5/2017: Minute Order

196 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/06/2019
  • Appeal - Notice Court Reporter to Prepare Appeal Transcript; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2019
  • Notice of Undertaking on Appeal; Appeal Bond Attached [C.C.P. 917.1]; Filed by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Notice (of Filing the Proposed Jury Instructions Exchanged via Email During the Jury Instruction Conference); Filed by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103; Filed by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Declaration ( of Sarah A. Marsey); Filed by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2019
  • Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (Unlimited Civil); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed; Filed by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Appellant); Farmers Insurance Exchange (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
393 More Docket Entries
  • 09/28/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2016
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2016
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2016
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (1) BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Alexander Pinto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: BC631341 Hearing Date: September 8, 2021 Dept: 31

\tPLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS IS DENIED.

Background

\r\n\r\n

On or about\r\nMarch 31, 2013, Plaintiff Alexander Pinto (“Plaintiff”) was involved in a car\r\naccident with Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange (“Defendant”)’s insureds. Plaintiff\r\nsuffered extensive injuries and became a quadriplegic. After the\r\naccident, Defendant allegedly failed to accept a reasonable settlement demand\r\nfor policy limits.

\r\n\r\n

On August 22, 2016,\r\nPlaintiff filed the instant suit against Defendant, alleging causes of\r\naction for (1) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (2)\r\nbreach of contract.

\r\n\r\n

On December 14, 2018, a jury\r\nfound in Plaintiff’s favor and awarded him $9,935,000 (“Trial Judgment”).

\r\n\r\n

On February 7, 2019,\r\nDefendant filed a notice of appeal of the Trial Judgment.

\r\n\r\n

On March 8, 2021, the Court\r\nof Appeal reversed the Trial Judgment, remanded the matter to enter a new\r\njudgment for Defendant, and ordered that Defendant was to recover its costs on\r\nappeal (“Appeal Judgment”). On March 18, 2021, the Court of Appeal modified its\r\nopinion, but there was no change in the Appeal Judgment. On June 25, 2021, a\r\nremittitur was filed.

\r\n\r\n

On July 28, 2021, Defendant\r\nfiled a memorandum of costs on appeal.

\r\n\r\n

On August 12, 2021,\r\nPlaintiff filed a motion to tax. Defendant opposes.

\r\n\r\n

Legal Standard

\r\n\r\n

Code of\r\nCivil Procedure § 1033.5 sets forth the costs recoverable by the prevailing\r\nparty. To recover a cost, it must be\r\nreasonably necessary to the litigation and reasonable in amount. (Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS\r\nEnterprises (l992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 244.) \r\nIf the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the\r\nburden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not\r\nreasonable or necessary. (Ladas v.\r\nCalifornia State Automotive Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-74.) On the other hand, if the items are properly\r\nobjected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party\r\nclaiming them as costs. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

In Item No.\r\n7 of Defendant’s memorandum of costs on appeal, Defendant seeks $335,307 for\r\npremium on a surety bond on appeal. Plaintiff seeks to tax this item on grounds\r\nthat a private surety bond was neither reasonable nor necessary given\r\nDefendant’s financial resources.

\r\n\r\n

After\r\nreviewing the parties’ arguments, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.

\r\n\r\n

First, Plaintiff\r\nsolely relies on statements made in its motion, which is improper. (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998)\r\n63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266 [“A party’s mere statements in the points and\r\nauthorities accompanying its notice of motion to strike cost bill and the\r\ndeclaration of counsel are insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing that\r\nthe costs were necessarily incurred”]; Bender v. County of Los Angeles (2013)\r\n217 Cal.App.4th 968, 989 [“A verified memorandum of costs is prima facie\r\nevidence of the propriety of the items listed on it, and the burden is on the\r\nparty challenging these costs to demonstrate that they were not reasonable or\r\nnecessary”].)

\r\n\r\n

Second, Plaintiff has not shown that the\r\nbond was unreasonable or unnecessary. “[T]he mere fact that an alternative\r\nprocedure, which would have been less expensive, was available does not mandate\r\nthat the option chosen was unreasonable or unnecessary.” (Rostack Investments, Inc. v. Sabella (2019)\r\n32 Cal.App.5th 70, 80.) Other than the availability of alternatives, Plaintiff\r\ndoes not address other factors that would aid the Court in determining whether\r\nthe bond was necessary, i.e., “the expediency to\r\nthe judgment debtor of the alternative procedure, the delay the alternative\r\nprocedure entailed, the risk of using the alternative procedure, and other\r\nadditional expense and interference with business operations which might be\r\nincurred by utilization of the alternative procedure.” (Rostack Investments, Inc., supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at\r\n81 (internal quotations and citation omitted).)

\r\n\r\n

In opposition, Defendant states it obtained the bond\r\nbecause Plaintiff refused to stay efforts to collect on the Trial Judgment\r\npending appeal. (DiNicola Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Exh. A.) That is, Defendant has\r\nexplained why alternatives were not suitable. Plaintiff has not shown anything\r\nto the contrary.

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s\r\nmotion to tax costs.

\r\n\r\n

Defendant to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all\r\nscheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters\r\nwill be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s\r\nLACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use\r\nLACourtConnect for all their matters. All masking protocols will be observed at\r\nthe Courthouse and in the courtrooms.

"
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where FARMERS UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION is a litigant

Latest cases where FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE A SUBSIDIARY OF FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP is a litigant

Latest cases where FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE PALUMBO