On 09/25/2015 BRIAN GRADEN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against LEE DANA WEISS, . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF and CRAIG D. KARLAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****4800
09/25/2015
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF
CRAIG D. KARLAN
BRIAN GRADEN
CATAMARAN HOLDING FUND LTD
CROSS AMY
FAMILY ENDOWMENT PARTNERS LP
FEP FUND I LP
FRIEDMAN ARON
GLOBAL DOMAIN VECTOR FUND LLC
I-DEA INVESTMENT FUND LTD.
LUCE DAVID
MIP GLOBAL INC.
MIP GLOBAL INC. A DELAWARE CORP
MOSAIC PREMIUM FUND LTD.
STILLPOINT CAPITAL LLC
WEISS LEE DANA
BLACKMERE PARTNERS INC.
CATAMARAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC.
UMSTEAD SCOTT
DO VIET X.
MOSAIC ENSEMBLE HOSPITALITY FUND L.P.
RIVERS DONALD
RAINES FELDMAN LLP
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
KIM HELEN B.
RHAMES MICHAEL R.
STEIN MITCHELL B.
EINSTEIN RIBAKOFF LAVINA & PHAM
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
KYNDRA MILLER
FREEMAN FREEMAN & SMILEY
MICHAEL R. RHAMES
STOUT CAMERON G.
GORDON & REES
RAFEEDIE FREDRICK A
JONES BELL ABBOTT FLEMING&FITZGERALD
MILLER KYNDRA
5/18/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
6/7/2018: Brief
6/11/2018: Judgment
6/11/2018: Minute Order
6/12/2018: Notice of Ruling
7/17/2018: Other -
7/17/2018: Other -
8/7/2018: Legacy Document
8/7/2018: Notice of Ruling
8/22/2018: Notice of Continuance
9/27/2018: Notice of Ruling
10/2/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
11/26/2018: Objection
11/29/2018: Response
11/30/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice
12/7/2018: Notice
1/30/2019: Minute Order
1/31/2019: Notice of Ruling
Judgment; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)
Judgment (- Stipulated Judgment - Before Trial - 03/06/2019 entered for Plaintiff BRIAN GRADEN against Defendant Weiss, Lee Dana.); Filed by Clerk
Notice of Ruling; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Trial Setting Conference - Held
at 3:28 PM in Department M; Nunc Pro Tunc Order
Minute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk
Minute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk
Notice (of Case Reassignment); Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)
Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk
Response (TO OBJECTION TO ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS I-DEA INVESTMENT FUND, LTD, AND GLOBAL DOMAIN FUND, LLC. AND REQUEST THAT SAID OBJECTION BE EITHER REJECTED DUE TO LACK OF STANDING OR SUMMARILY DENIED); Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Request for Dismissal-Partial (W/O PREJUDICE AS TO CRAIG COLUMBUS ONLY ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Request for Dismissal-Partial; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)
Complaint Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Complaint; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)
Case Number: SC124800 Hearing Date: December 02, 2020 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Brian Graden v. Lee Dana Weiss, et al.
CASE NO.: SC124800
MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs (unopposed)
Hearing: 12/2/2020
Legal standard
A prevailing party in litigation may recover costs, including but not limited to filing fees. (Code Civ. Proc., §1033.5(a)(1).) “A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after [1] the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or [2] the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or [3] within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.” (CA Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(a).)
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(c)(2), allowable costs are only recoverable if they are “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.” Even mandatory costs, when incurred unnecessarily, are subject to section 1033(c)(2). (Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 245.) Section 1033.5(c)(4) provides that “[i]tems not mentioned in this section and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court’s discretion.” (Code Civ. Proc., §1033.5(c)(4).)
Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700, a party may file and serve a motion to tax costs listed in a memorandum of costs.(See CRC Rule 3.1700(b).) Under Rule 3.1700(b)(1), “Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. If the cost memorandum was served electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4).” A verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services therein listed were necessarily incurred. (Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 266.) A party seeking to tax costs must provide evidence to rebut this prima facie showing. (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266.) Mere statements unsupported by facts are insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing that costs were necessarily incurred. (Id.)
Analysis
Plaintiff seeks to tax the costs sought by Defendants Mosaic Premium Fund, Ltd. and Global Domain Vector Fund LLC in the memorandum of costs. Plaintiff requests that the Court tax and reduce the costs to $870.
Individual items
Line 1 – filing fees
Plaintiff argues that Defendants improperly seek $5,983.34 for filing and motion fees. Plaintiff argues, and the Court notes, that these Defendants did not actively participate in the litigation. Plaintiff requests that the Court tax $5,113.34. The motion is GRANTED as to this request. The request now reads: $870.
Line 14 – Fees for electronic filing and service
Plaintiff argues that $374.00 in electronic filing fees is unreasonable since First Legal only charges $6.75 per filing. Plaintiff also provides evidence of the First Legal fees. The Court agrees that these costs are unreasonable. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion to tax this cost.
Line 16 – Other
Plaintiff argues that the costs claimed in item 16 should be entirely taxed. Defendants have not included additional information as to how they incurred $1,633.50 in costs. While the Court has discretion to award costs not specifically provided for in Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, it is not clear to the Court how Defendants incurred these costs. Therefore, the Court exercise its discretion and disallows these costs. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion to tax this cost.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases