This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/28/2019 at 18:32:46 (UTC).

AUSTIN REILLY ET AL VS MICHAEL CHARLES PARKER ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/03/2016 AUSTIN REILLY filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against MICHAEL CHARLES PARKER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are PETER A. HERNANDEZ and DUKES, ROBERT A.. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9135

  • Filing Date:

    05/03/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

DUKES, ROBERT A.

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

REILLY AUSTIN

REILLY OWEN

REILLY CHRISTIE

Defendants and Respondents

FOOTHILL PIZZA INC

DOMINO'S PIZZA INC

GIBSON BRUCE D

DOMINO'S STORE #8174

PARKER MICHAEL CHARLES

DOES 1-50

FOOTHILL PIZZA INC.

FOOTHILL PLAZA INC.

GIBSON BRUCE

DOMINO'S PIZZA FRANCHISE LLC.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

FOOTHILL PIZZA INC.

Cross Defendants

HIRERIGHT LLC

HIRERIGHT LLC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GILBERT KELLY CROWLEY & JENNETT LLP

BIGLEY PAUL A. ESQ.

FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY LLP

BIGLEY PAUL ANDREW ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

FAENZA CHRISTOPHER ESQ.

GAUTREAU PAUL N. LAW OFFICES OF

GAUTREAU PAUL NORMAND

LOFTON LAUREN A. ESQ.

LOFTON LAUREN A.R. ESQ.

FAENZA CHRISTOPHER EDWARD ESQ.

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

YOKA & SMITH LLP

 

Court Documents

Case Management Statement

9/28/2017: Case Management Statement

Unknown

2/14/2018: Unknown

Unknown

2/14/2018: Unknown

Unknown

2/14/2018: Unknown

Unknown

2/27/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/13/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/14/2018: Unknown

Order

4/17/2018: Order

Unknown

5/8/2018: Unknown

Unknown

5/8/2018: Unknown

Motion in Limine

1/29/2019: Motion in Limine

Opposition

2/7/2019: Opposition

Opposition

3/6/2019: Opposition

Order

3/22/2019: Order

Notice

5/1/2019: Notice

Declaration

5/7/2019: Declaration

REPLY OF DEFENDANT, MICHAEL CHARLES PARKER, TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY DEPOSITION, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR IMMUNITY AGAINST USE OF DEPOSITION ANSWERS IN ANY CRIMINAL PROSE

7/14/2017: REPLY OF DEFENDANT, MICHAEL CHARLES PARKER, TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY DEPOSITION, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR IMMUNITY AGAINST USE OF DEPOSITION ANSWERS IN ANY CRIMINAL PROSE

NOTICE OF CASE TRANSFER

7/20/2017: NOTICE OF CASE TRANSFER

206 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/24/2019
  • Stipulation - No Order (Stipulation to Extend the Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Motions to Tax Costs as to All Defendants); Filed by Austin Reilly (Plaintiff); Owen Reilly (Plaintiff); Christie Reilly (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for New Trial - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Order (Ruling on the Court's Tentative Ruling); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for New Trial;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • Memorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by Michael Charles Parker (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • Reply (in support of plaintiff Austin Reillys motion for new trial); Filed by Austin Reilly (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Memorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by Foothill Pizza, Inc. dba Domino's Store No. 8174 Erroneously Sued As Domino's Store #8174 (Defendant); Foothill Pizza, Inc. dba Domino's Store No. 8174 Erroneously Sued As Foothill Pizza, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Declaration (Lofton Decl ISO Memo of Costs (Austin, Owen, and Christie Reilly)); Filed by Foothill Pizza, Inc. dba Domino's Store No. 8174 Erroneously Sued As Domino's Store #8174 (Defendant); Foothill Pizza, Inc. dba Domino's Store No. 8174 Erroneously Sued As Foothill Pizza, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Memorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by Foothill Pizza, Inc. dba Domino's Store No. 8174 Erroneously Sued As Domino's Store #8174 (Defendant); Foothill Pizza, Inc. dba Domino's Store No. 8174 Erroneously Sued As Foothill Pizza, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
344 More Docket Entries
  • 06/20/2016
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Foothill Pizza Inc., (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2016
  • Summons Issued; Filed by Foothill Pizza, Inc. dba Domino's Store No. 8174 Erroneously Sued As Domino's Store #8174 (Defendant); Foothill Pizza, Inc. dba Domino's Store No. 8174 Erroneously Sued As Foothill Pizza, Inc (Defendant); Bruce D

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2016
  • DEFENDANTS, FOOTHILL PIZZA, INC. DBA DOMINO'S STORE #8174, BRUCE D. GIBSON, AND DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC'S, ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2016
  • Answer; Filed by Foothill Pizza, Inc. dba Domino's Store No. 8174 Erroneously Sued As Foothill Pizza, Inc (Defendant); Bruce D Gibson (Defendant); Domino's Pizza, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2016
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2016
  • Receipt; Filed by Austin Reilly (Plaintiff); Christie Reilly (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2016
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Austin Reilly (Plaintiff); Owen Reilly (Plaintiff); Christie Reilly (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC619135    Hearing Date: December 05, 2019    Dept: O

s motions to strike and tax costs sought by Defendants Foothill Pizza, Inc., and Michael Charles Parker are DENIED, in part, and GRANTED, in part.

Plaintiffs Austin Reilly, Owen Reilly, and Christie Reilly (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) move to strike and tax costs per California Rule of Court 3.1700(b) after Defendants Foothill Pizza, Inc. and Michael Charles Parker (collectively, the “Defendants”) prevailed at trial.

While Plaintiff Austin Reilly separately filed a motion to tax cost from his parents, Plaintiffs Owen and Christie Reilly, the Court will consider the motions together as they overlap in argument and are identical in several sections of the submitted papers.

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that these costs can be assessed against all Plaintiffs jointly and severally. The Court also finds that the lack of a Memorandum of Cost Worksheet does not invalidate a Memorandum of Cost as there is no legal basis for this contention by Plaintiffs. While the Court has considered the percentage of costs that will be borne by each plaintiff, the Court believes that most of the costs should be borne solely by Plaintiff Austin Reilly.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding. (CCP § 1032(b).)

The losing party may dispute any or all the items in the prevailing party’s memorandum of costs by a motion to strike or tax costs. (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. (Ladas v. California State Automotive Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-774, emphasis added.) 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. (Ibid.)

Item 1: Filing Fees:

The Court finds that the court filing fees for Defendant’s three stipulations to continue trial ($60), and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment are proper and necessary to the conduct of litigation. While Plaintiffs essentially requests that the Court apportion the filing fee for the summary judgment between Defendant Foothill Plaza and former defendant Bruce Gibson, there is no risk that Plaintiffs would need to repay an additional cost to Bruce Gibson for this motion. (See Kramer v. Ferguson (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 237, 249-51.) Accordingly, the Court declines to tax Item 1.

Item 4: Deposition Costs:

The Court finds the witness fees for the depositions of (1) the Covina Police Department officers that responded to the incident, (2) the character witnesses of Defendant Parker, (3) expert witness depositions, and (4) Plaintiff’s medical records were necessary to the conduct of litigation. The Court declines to tax these amounts for Item 4 but will agree to tax $1,408.99 from the total cost of Item 4 for the deposition of Joseph Devereaux.

Items 5 & 8.A: Service of Process; Witness Fees

Likewise, the service of deposition subpoenas to the above witnesses, along with fees associated with those that testified at trial, were also necessary to the conduct of litigation. The Court declines to tax these Items.

Item 8.B: Expert Witness Fees:

As an initial matter, the Court finds that the section 998 offer made by Defendants jointly is valid under California case law. (See Winston Square Homeowner’s Assoc. v. Centex West, Inc. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 282, 294 (defendant found not liable on non-joint claim was entitled to rely on joint 998 offer by defendants even though not broken down); see also Stallman v. Bell (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 740, 745-77; Brown v. Nolan (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 445, 451.) Thus, expert witness fees are recoverable.

Item 12: Models, Enlargements, and Photocopies of Exhibits:

The Court finds that the costs associated with exhibits used at trial are reasonable and necessary to the conduct of litigation pursuant to Ladas v. California State Auto Ass’n (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761.

Item 16: Mediation Fees:

The Court finds that the mediation fees are reasonable and necessary to the conduct of litigation and declines to tax Item 16.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 grants the Court discretion to apportion costs between the parties on the same side to the prevailing party of a lawsuit. (CCP § 1032(a)(4).) This discretion allows trial court to assess costs jointly and severally against multiple losing plaintiffs who jointly prosecute claims against a prevailing defendant. (Id.; see also Acosta v. SI Corp. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1375.) Based on the foregoing and the pleadings filed in this matter, Defendant Foothill Pizza, Inc. is entitled to recover $61,761.77 from Plaintiff Austin Reilly, $64,074.27 from Plaintiffs Owen and Christine Reilly, and Defendant Michael Parker is entitled to recover $21,714.00 from Plaintiffs. Throughout this litigation, it appears that the thrust of this case surrounded the conduct and actions of Plaintiff Austin Reilly and his parents Plaintiffs Owen and Christina Reilly’s involvement in this litigation was minimal. However, the Court is reminded that despite their minimal involvement, the Court was concerned about Plaintiff Owen Reilly’s testimony at trial and finds that all Plaintiffs in this action should be held liable for some portion of the costs. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiff Austin Reilly, individually, will be responsible for 95% of the total amount of $83,475.77, and Plaintiffs Owen and Christine Reilly will be responsible for 5% of such an amount jointly and severally amongst Plaintiffs plus the additional witness fees of $2,312.50.

Based on the foregoing, motion is DENIED, in part, and GRANTED, in part.