Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/09/2019 at 21:40:35 (UTC).

BRIAN GRADEN VS LEE DANA WEISS, ET AL.,

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4800

  • Filing Date:

    09/25/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF

CRAIG D. KARLAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

BRIAN GRADEN

Defendants

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.

Trustee

RIVERS DONALD

3 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys

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

 

Court Documents

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

5/18/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Brief

6/7/2018: Brief

Judgment

6/11/2018: Judgment

Minute Order

6/11/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

6/12/2018: Notice of Ruling

Other -

7/17/2018: Other -

Other -

7/17/2018: Other -

Legacy Document

8/7/2018: Legacy Document

Notice of Ruling

8/7/2018: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Continuance

8/22/2018: Notice of Continuance

Notice of Ruling

9/27/2018: Notice of Ruling

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

10/2/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Objection

11/26/2018: Objection

Response

11/29/2018: Response

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

11/30/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Notice

12/7/2018: Notice

Minute Order

1/30/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

1/31/2019: Notice of Ruling

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/06/2019
  • Judgment; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Judgment (- Stipulated Judgment - Before Trial - 03/06/2019 entered for Plaintiff BRIAN GRADEN against Defendant Weiss, Lee Dana.); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • at 3:28 PM in Department M; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2018
  • Notice (of Case Reassignment); Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2018
  • 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)

    Read MoreRead Less
636 More Docket Entries
  • 10/15/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2015
  • Request for Dismissal-Partial (W/O PREJUDICE AS TO CRAIG COLUMBUS ONLY ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2015
  • Request for Dismissal-Partial; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2015
  • Complaint Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by BRIAN GRADEN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where FAMILY ENDOWMENT PARTNERS LP is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MILLER KYNDRA

Latest cases represented by Lawyer RAFEEDIE ESQ FREDERICK A

Latest cases represented by Lawyer RHAMES MICHAEL R. ESQ.