Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/26/2019 at 15:44:51 (UTC).

COREY PRATHER VS GNG RESTAURANT GROUP LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/15/2015 COREY PRATHER filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against GNG RESTAURANT GROUP LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. MATZ, CURTIS A. KIN and PATRICIA D. NIETO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4313

  • Filing Date:

    12/15/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. MATZ

CURTIS A. KIN

PATRICIA D. NIETO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Cross Defendant

PRATHER COREY

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

GNG RETAURANT GROUP LLC

GARCIA BEN

103 LOUNGE

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

GNG RESTAURANT GROUP LLC

GARCIA DENA

HONEST PLUMBLING INC.

PRATHER COREY

GARCIA ALBERT

MOKHATAS MICHELLE

ROES 1 THROUGH 25

GARCIA BEN SR.

NUNEZ GINO

GARCIA RENEE

GARCIA SR. BEN

GARCIA RENE

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

GARCIA BEN

GARCIA DENA

HONEST PLUMBING INC.

GARCIA DEANA

HONEST PLUMBLING INC.

10 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Cross Defendant and Plaintiff Attorneys

MICHAEL KOPPLE THE LAW OFFICES OF

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL KOPPLE THE

THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL KOPPLE

KOPPLE MICHAEL STUART

OMIDFAR DELAVAR

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL KOPPLE THE

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

DENNIS P. WILSON LAW OFFICES OF

WILSON TRIAL GROUP

WILSON DENNIS PATRICK

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

WILSON TRIAL GROUP

 

Court Documents

Summons

12/15/2015: Summons

Unknown

3/17/2016: Unknown

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

4/19/2017: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Ruling

11/28/2017: Notice of Ruling

Unknown

12/6/2017: Unknown

Unknown

1/9/2018: Unknown

Unknown

2/14/2018: Unknown

Unknown

9/4/2018: Unknown

Reply

9/12/2018: Reply

Motion in Limine

10/26/2018: Motion in Limine

Exhibit List

10/30/2018: Exhibit List

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1) ASSUALT, ETC

4/1/2016: CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1) ASSUALT, ETC

SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

4/1/2016: SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

11/30/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

NOTICE OF AUTOMATIC STAY AND BANKRUPTCY FILINGS BY CROSS-DEFENDANTS RENE GARCIA AND ALBERTO GARCIA

4/11/2017: NOTICE OF AUTOMATIC STAY AND BANKRUPTCY FILINGS BY CROSS-DEFENDANTS RENE GARCIA AND ALBERTO GARCIA

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [ AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES ] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY

10/4/2017: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [ AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES ] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY

NOTICE OF RULING ON OCTOBER 4, 2017

10/11/2017: NOTICE OF RULING ON OCTOBER 4, 2017

Minute Order

11/14/2017: Minute Order

131 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/28/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; (Trial) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • at 1:17 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 05/16/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; (Trial) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
229 More Docket Entries
  • 03/17/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. BATTERY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2015
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2015
  • Summons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2015
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC604313    Hearing Date: September 11, 2020    Dept: E

MOTIONS TO TAX COSTS (2)

[CRC 3.1700(b)]

Date: 9/11/20 (2:00 p.m.)

Case: Corey Prather v. GNG Restaurant Group, LLC et al. (BC604313)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Ben Garcia’s Motion to Tax Costs or in the Alternative, Strike the Costs Bills of Plaintiff is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant/cross-defendant Ben Garcia (“defendant”) contends that, because the judgment in favor of plaintiff could have been recovered in a limited civil case, the Court should exercise its discretion under CCP § 1033(a) to reduce or deny plaintiff Corey Prather’s costs. Although the jurisdictional limit in a limited civil case is $25,000 (CCP § 85(a)), in addition to the $12,000 the jury awarded plaintiff/cross-defendant Corey Prather (“plaintiff”) against defendant Ben Garcia, plaintiff also obtained a $15,000 settlement from Albert Garcia, Rene Garcia, Michele Mokhatas, GNG Restaurant Group, LLC dba 103 Lounge, and Gino Nunez in this action. (Oustinovskaya Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3 & Ex. A.) Moreover, the Court finds that plaintiff in good faith brought his claims against defendant Ben Garcia with a reasonable belief that his recovery would exceed $25,000. For these reasons, even though plaintiff’s ultimate recovery at trial was less than $25,000, the Court exercises its discretion under CCP § 1033(a) to award reasonable costs to plaintiff.

Defendant also argues that under CCP § 998, plaintiff is not entitled to any costs because plaintiff’s judgment of $12,000 was less than his CCP § 998 offer of $84,999.99. While it is true that, on October 12, 2018, plaintiff Prather made a CCP §998 offer for $84,999.99 (Def. Mtn. Ex. 1) and that defendant Ben Garcia did not accept the offer and obtained a more favorable judgment, CCP § 998 is inapplicable in such circumstances. CCP § 998(d) does not apply because defendant obtained a more favorable judgment and, in any event, plaintiff does not make any claim for expert fees. CCP §§ 998(c)(1) and 998(e) do not apply because defendant never served a CCP § 998 offer on plaintiff. (Oustinovskaya Decl. ¶ 5.)

Under CCP § 1032(a)(4) and (b), because plaintiff obtained a net monetary recovery on his First Amended Complaint, plaintiff is entitled to recover costs. Further, on December 17, 2019, Ben Garcia orally moved to dismiss his cross-complaint against cross-defendant Prather. Accordingly, Prather is the prevailing party on defendant Ben Garcia’s cross-complaint against him because he is a “defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered” and a “defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.” (CCP § 1032(a)(4); see also Great Western Bank v. Converse Consultants, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 609, 612 [“[C]osts are available as a matter of right to a cross-defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered”]; Huerta v. Kava Holdings, Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 74, 79 [“By statute, a defendant against whom a plaintiff recovers no relief is a ‘prevailing party’”].) Thus, as to both the First Amended Complaint and the First Amended Cross-Complaint, plaintiff is the prevailing party vis-à-vis Ben Garcia and entitled to costs.

Defendant next argues that plaintiff did not apportion costs between him and cross-complainant Deana Garcia. “If any party recovers other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the ‘prevailing party’ shall be as determined by the court, and under those circumstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or not and, if allowed, may apportion costs between the parties on the same or adverse sides pursuant to rules adopted under Section 1034.” (CCP § 1032(a)(4).) Here, plaintiff recovered a dismissal from the cross-complainant as to Ben Garcia and a judgment against cross-complainant Deana Garcia where Deana Garcia did not obtain any relief. Because plaintiff recovered more than monetary relief and because plaintiff prevailed against more than one party, the Court has the discretion to apportion costs between the cross-complainants. The Court, however, finds that apportionment is not necessary here. Notably, Ben Garcia dismissed his cross-claims against plaintiff on the eve of trial, and thus plaintiffs incurred the same expenses in defending against both Ben Garcia and Deana Garcia’s cross-complaint up until trial. Moreover, given the overlapping, if not identical, issues plaintiff was required to litigate in both prosecuting his complaint and defendant against the cross-complaint, the Court finds that all costs plaintiff incurred prior to and though trial were necessarily for both.

The Court finds that the following costs are taxed because plaintiff withdrew them in the opposition or because plaintiff did not meet his burden to justify these costs:

$360 for the $60 filing fee associated with 6 discovery motions – Plaintiff concedes defendant already paid these costs and withdrew the claim for such costs in the opposition.

$1,000 for videotaping costs in deposition – Plaintiff admits that his counsel performed the videotaping of the depositions of Officer Chris Haddad, Officer Chris Ayad, Gino Nunez, and Rene Garcia. Once defendant challenged the videotaping costs, plaintiff had the burden to justify the costs. (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) Plaintiff did not provide any receipts supporting $1,000 in videotaping costs.

$50 in service of process costs - With respect to Gabriel Cosio, plaintiff attached to the cost memorandum an invoice for $65, dated September 24, 2018 and an invoice for $50, dated October 29, 2018. Plaintiff provides a proof of service dated September 24, 2018 indicating that service of the subpoena costing $65 was performed by a registered process server. (Oustinovskaya Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. B.) However, plaintiff does not provide any evidence regarding how the subpoena served on October 29, 2018 and costing $50 was served. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 132 [“Since [the] memorandum of costs does not state how the subpoenas were served, it cannot be determined from the face of the cost bill whether the items are proper [and therefore recoverable under CCP §1033.5(a)(4)”].)

The Court finds that other costs attacked by defendant/cross-complainant Ben Garcia are reasonably necessary to the conduct of this litigation and are accordingly recoverable under CCP § 1033.5(c)(2). In this regard, the Court notes that the CourtCall fee was reasonably incurred, the depositions of the police officers were necessary to the litigation even if they did not testify at trial, and the fees for the witnesses who ultimately did not testify at trial were reasonably paid in furtherance of plaintiff’s case.

Accordingly, the costs of $24,967.94 plaintiff claims in his Memorandum of Costs, filed February 26, 2020, are taxed in the amount of $1,410, comprised of $360 (filing fees), $1,000 (deposition costs), and $50 (service of process). Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recovery of $23,557.94 in costs from defendant Ben Garcia.

Finally, plaintiff/cross-defendant Corey Prather’s Motion to Tax Costs of Defendant Ben Garcia is GRANTED. Prather seeks to strike the entirety of Ben Garcia’s Memorandum of Costs on the ground that Garcia was not a prevailing party. For the reasons stated above, the Court finds Garcia was not a prevailing party and is therefore not entitled to costs under CCP § 1032(b). Accordingly, defendant/cross-complainant Ben Garcia’s Memorandum of Costs, filed February 24, 2020, is STRICKEN.