Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/03/2019 at 04:44:49 (UTC).

INGRI DURAN VS ATLANTIC MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATS INC ET

Case Summary

On 11/16/2015 INGRI DURAN filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against ATLANTIC MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATS INC ET. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ROSS KLEIN. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0366

  • Filing Date:

    11/16/2015

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ROSS KLEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

INGRI DURAN

DURAN INGRI

Defendants

ATLANTIC MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE ASSOC. INC.

DOES 1 - 50 INC.

JAKE ROTHNEY - INDIV

CALL & JENSEN J. R. TROTTER

INDIV JAKE ROTHNEY -

Not Classified By Court

PARKER LISA MARIE

L.A. DEPOSITIONS INC.

MCKINLEY SABA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

TWILA S WHITE LAW OFFICE

Defendant Attorney

CALL & JENSEN (J. R. TROTTER)

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/26/2019
  • Notice (NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF PLAINTIFF?S COUNSEL REGARDING PERSONAL/MEDICAL LEAVE); Filed by INGRI DURAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by INGRI DURAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2019
  • Appeal Record Delivered (SUPPLEMENTAL Appeals filed 11-22-17 &12-11-17); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Appeal - Augmented Clerk's Transcript 6 - 10 Volumes Certified; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2019
  • Appeal - Clerk's Transcript Fee Paid

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • Notice of Default; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • Appeal - Clerk's Transcript Fee Paid

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal (SUPPLEMENTAL CLERKS TRANSCRIPTS); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2018
  • Appeal - Notice Court Reporter to Correct/Augment Transcript (B286660; SUPPLEMENTAL); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2018
  • Appeal - Reporter Appeal Transcript Process Fee Paid; Filed by ATLANTIC MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE ASSOC. INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
224 More Docket Entries
  • 12/22/2015
  • Answer to Complaint Filed (ANS OF DEFT., ALTLANTIC MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES, INC.; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2015
  • Answer; Filed by ATLANTIC MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE ASSOC. INC. (Defendant); CALL & JENSEN (J. R. TROTTER) (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2015
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by INGRI DURAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2015
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by INGRI DURAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2015
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (P.S. SUMMONS, COMP, ETC. P.S. ATLANTIC MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE ASSOCAITES INC. SERVED GLADYS AGUILERA, PROCESS P SECIALIST FOR NAT REG. PERSONAL SERVICE 11-24-15); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2015
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (p.s. summons, comp etc p.s. JAKE ROTHEY SUB SERVED, IRIS TAPIA- PIC AT ATLANTIC MEM HEALTH ASSOC 11-24-15 + DECL OF DILL + DECL OF MAIL); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • Summons Filed (ORIGINAL SUMMONS ISSUED AND FILED ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by INGRI DURAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: NC060366    Hearing Date: January 12, 2021    Dept: S27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH DISTRICT

INGRI DURAN,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

ATLANTIC MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: NC060366

[TENTATIVE] ORDER

Dept. S27

8:30 a.m.

January 12, 2021

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Ingri Duran

Opposing Party: Defendants, Atlantic Memorial Healthcare Associates, Inc. and Jake Rothey

Notice: OK

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, Ingri Duran filed this action against Defendants, Atlantic Memorial Healthcare Associates, Inc. and Jake Rothey for both FEHA-based and non-FEHA-based claims arising out of her employment relationship with Defendants. Plaintiff filed the action on 11/16/15. The Court granted summary adjudication of most of Plaintiff’s claims on 6/29/17. Plaintiff dismissed her remaining claims on 9/26/17 in order to render the action ripe for appeal.

Plaintiff appealed the order granting summary adjudication. On 4/07/20, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The Court of Appeals’ ruling expressly includes the language, at the conclusion of the decision, “Defendants are to recover their costs on appeal.”

On 8/14/20, Defendants filed two memoranda of costs. The first memorandum seeks to recover $9513.02 in costs incurred at the trial court level. The second memorandum seeks to recover $2677.84 in costs incurred at the appellate court level.

2. Motion to Tax Costs

Plaintiff filed a motion to tax costs on 9/02/20. The following issues are presented by way of the motion and opposition:

· Were Defendants’ memoranda and/or Plaintiff’s motion timely and, if it was not, is the failure to timely file the memoranda/motion fatal to the memoranda/motion?

· Do Plaintiff’s FEHA-based claims preclude the Court from awarding Defendants their costs absent a showing that the matter was brought or maintained objectively without foundation?

· What effect do Plaintiff’s non-FEHA-based claims have on the right to recover costs?

· What effect does the Court of Appeals’ express statement that Defendants are to recover their costs on appeal have on the issue of recovery of costs on appeal?

  1. Timeliness of Memoranda and Motion

Defendants filed their memoranda on 8/14/20. Each memorandum includes a proof of service, which shows service of the memoranda by electronic service using the Court’s Electronic Filing System. The Court does not know what this means. Plaintiffs’ attorney and her assistant declare they did not receive the memoranda in their email. It appears Defendants believe simply electronically filing the memoranda amounts to service of the memoranda; Defendants do not address the issue in their opposition.

Compounding the issue, Plaintiff does not seek an order striking the memoranda as untimely filed. She seeks only an order permitting her to file a tardy motion to strike the fees under CCP §473(b), which Defendants expressly do not contest. While the time limit for filing (and presumedly serving) the memorandum of costs is mandatory, it can be extended by stipulation or by a showing that relief is necessary per §473(b). See Hydratec, Inc. v. Sun Valley 260 Orchard & Vineyard Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 924, 929. Thus, because Plaintiff does not expressly move to strike the memoranda as untimely, the Court will not strike them on this ground. The Court will consider both the untimely served memoranda and the consequently untimely served motion.

  1. Effect of FEHA-based claims coupled with non-FEHA-based claims

Plaintiff, in her moving papers, cites the general law making clear that costs can only be awarded to a defendant in a FEHA action when the plaintiff pursued an action that was objectively without foundation. Defendants, in their opposition, do not attempt to show the action was objectively without foundation; they therefore failed to meet their burden to so show.

Defendants instead argue that only eight of Plaintiff’s seventeen causes of action were FEHA-based, and therefore they should be awarded their costs. They argue they would have incurred all of their costs even if there were no FEHA causes of action in the complaint, and therefore contend they are entitled to recover ALL of their costs. Defendants cite Arave v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 525, 547-548 in support of their position. In Arave, the Court of Appeals visited this issue quite briefly. It stated, “We note, however, the holding in Williams does not preclude defendants from obtaining ordinary costs on Arave’s wage claim. We are unable on the record before us to differentiate those costs, and the decision to award attorney fees lies properly with the trial court, so we will remand the case to the trial court to resolve that issue.”

Plaintiff, in reply, cites Roman v. BRE Properties, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1059-1062 to support her position that when costs incurred in relation to both FEHA-based and non-FEHA-based claims are intertwined, the costs cannot be awarded absent a showing that the FEHA action was pursued objectively without foundation. The Court has read and considered Roman. The Roman Court held that, where FEHA claims and non-FEHA claims are joined in a single suit, the prevailing defendant can ONLY recover costs on the non-FEHA claims if the defendant shows the costs would not have been incurred but for the inclusion of the non-FEHA claims. To the extent the costs were all intertwined, the defendant cannot recover the costs. Defendants herein expressly argue the costs were all intertwined, and therefore the motion to strike the costs bill is well-taken.

  1. Effect of Court of Appeals’ Statement that Defendants are to Recover Costs on Appeal

As noted above, the Court of Appeals expressly stated, at the conclusion of its ruling, that Defendants are to recover costs on appeal. Plaintiff argues this statement does not govern, and cites Bell v. Superior Court (1906) 150 Cal. 31, 33 to support her position. Plaintiff appears to have mis-cited the case, as there is no Bell v. Superior Court at either 150 Cal. 31 or 150 Cal.App. 31.

Neither party has cited authority in one direction or the other on this issue. The Court tends to find that the Court of Appeals’ inclusion of express language concerning costs indicates the Court of Appeals made any necessary findings, in connection with the appeal, to support its conclusion. The Court therefore declines to strike the memorandum of costs relating to costs on appeal.

  1. Conclusion

It is questionable whether Defendants timely served their memoranda of costs. This failure led to Plaintiff’s failure to timely file her motion to strike costs. The parties appear to agree that all these defects are governed by CCP §473(b). In light of the pandemic, the Court agrees, and has considered both the memoranda and the motion on their merits.

Defendants failed to show Plaintiff pursued this suit objectively without foundation. Defendants also failed to show the inclusion of intertwined non-FEHA claims gives rise to a right to recover costs. The motion to strike the memorandum of costs relating to trial court costs in the amount of $9513.02 is therefore granted.

The Court does, however, find the Court of Appeals’ express award of costs to Defendants on appeal governs recovery of those costs. The motion to strike the memorandum of costs relating to appellate costs in the amount of $2677.84 is therefore denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

DATED: January 12, 2021 _____________________________________

MARK C. KIM Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ATLANTIC MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where L.A. DEPOSITIONS INC. is a litigant