This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/18/2016 at 15:12:00 (UTC).

JASBIR SINGH VS STEPHANIE CHING-YEE CHAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/22/2013 JASBIR SINGH filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against STEPHANIE CHING-YEE CHAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JOHN L. SEGAL, ALLAN J. GOODMAN, SUSAN BRYANT-DEASON, SAMANTHA P. JESSNER, JOSEPH R. KALIN, JAMES C. CHALFANT and TERESA A. BEAUDET. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9223

  • Filing Date:

    08/22/2013

  • 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

JOHN L. SEGAL

ALLAN J. GOODMAN

SUSAN BRYANT-DEASON

SAMANTHA P. JESSNER

JOSEPH R. KALIN

JAMES C. CHALFANT

TERESA A. BEAUDET

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

BOLA PROPERTIES INC.

JASMINE ENTERPRISES INC.

KAUR JASWINDER

SINGH JASBIR

Defendants and Respondents

CHAN STEPHANIE CHING-YEE

DOES 1 TO 100

MOLNAR CHRISTIAN STEPHEN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

PARKER C. BRENT ESQ.

AGAWA THOMAS K.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

ARENDSEN CANE LLP

MURPHY PEARSON BRADLEY & FEENEY

Other Attorneys

JOSEPH CANE

 

Court Documents

EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT JASMINE ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR AN ORDER (A) DIRECTING THE LA SHERIFF DEPT. TO REALLOCATE FUNDS FROM APPLIED JASBIR SINGH AND INDIA'S GRILL TO JASMINE ENTERPRISES, INC.

2/5/2015: EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT JASMINE ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR AN ORDER (A) DIRECTING THE LA SHERIFF DEPT. TO REALLOCATE FUNDS FROM APPLIED JASBIR SINGH AND INDIA'S GRILL TO JASMINE ENTERPRISES, INC.

DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT CHRISTIAN S. MOLNAR''S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND CROSS- DEFENDANTS'' MOTION TO INCREASE UNDERTAKING BY $1,105,000.00; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY M. HUNT, ESQ., IN SUPPORT

3/13/2015: DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT CHRISTIAN S. MOLNAR''S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND CROSS- DEFENDANTS'' MOTION TO INCREASE UNDERTAKING BY $1,105,000.00; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY M. HUNT, ESQ., IN SUPPORT

PLAINTIFFS' & CROSS-DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MARCH 26, 2015 MOTION TO INCREASE UNDERTAKING

3/23/2015: PLAINTIFFS' & CROSS-DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MARCH 26, 2015 MOTION TO INCREASE UNDERTAKING

DEFENDANTS STEPHANIE CHING-YEE CHAN AND CHRISTIAN STEPHEN MOLNAR'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

6/26/2015: DEFENDANTS STEPHANIE CHING-YEE CHAN AND CHRISTIAN STEPHEN MOLNAR'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

DEFENDANT CHRISTIAN S. MOLNAR AND STEPHANIE CLING-YEE CHAN'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO PRECLUDE REFERENCES TO UNPLEAD CLAIMS AND THEORIES OF LIABILITY

9/3/2015: DEFENDANT CHRISTIAN S. MOLNAR AND STEPHANIE CLING-YEE CHAN'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO PRECLUDE REFERENCES TO UNPLEAD CLAIMS AND THEORIES OF LIABILITY

CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOLNAR'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE OF OTHER LITIGATION MATTERS OR ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH CROSS-COMPLAINT MOLNAR HAS BEEN, OR IS, A

9/3/2015: CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOLNAR'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE OF OTHER LITIGATION MATTERS OR ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH CROSS-COMPLAINT MOLNAR HAS BEEN, OR IS, A

Minute Order

1/22/2016: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF JEFF C. HSU REGARDING STATUS OF DEFENDANTS? STEPHANIE CHING-YEE CHAN AND CHRISTIAN STEPHEN MOLNAR OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1/29/2016: DECLARATION OF JEFF C. HSU REGARDING STATUS OF DEFENDANTS? STEPHANIE CHING-YEE CHAN AND CHRISTIAN STEPHEN MOLNAR OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS STEPHANIE CHING-YEE CHAN AND CHRISTIAN STEPHEN MOLNAR'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY A

2/23/2016: ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS STEPHANIE CHING-YEE CHAN AND CHRISTIAN STEPHEN MOLNAR'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY A

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS & CROSS-DEFENDANTS JASBIR SINGH'S, JAS WINDER KAUR'S, BOLA PROPERTIES, LLC'S, ETC

11/9/2016: PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS & CROSS-DEFENDANTS JASBIR SINGH'S, JAS WINDER KAUR'S, BOLA PROPERTIES, LLC'S, ETC

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY)

5/3/2017: MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY)

PLAINTIFFS' AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES STIPULATION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO DEFENDANT'S INSURANCE

6/5/2017: PLAINTIFFS' AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES STIPULATION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO DEFENDANT'S INSURANCE

PLAINTIFFS' AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO STRICKEN CLAIMS; DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF

6/5/2017: PLAINTIFFS' AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO STRICKEN CLAIMS; DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF

CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO OFFER THE VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF ROBERT KEHR INTO EVIDENCE

6/9/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO OFFER THE VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF ROBERT KEHR INTO EVIDENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE

6/9/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE

ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

6/16/2017: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT CHRISTIAN S. MOLNAR TO APPEAR AT TRIAL & REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AT TRIAL OF BOOKS, DOCUMENTS OR OTHER THINGS PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE SECTION 1987(B),(C)

8/9/2017: NOTICE TO DEFENDANT CHRISTIAN S. MOLNAR TO APPEAR AT TRIAL & REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AT TRIAL OF BOOKS, DOCUMENTS OR OTHER THINGS PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE SECTION 1987(B),(C)

CLOSING BRIEF OF THE SINGH PARTIES - TRIAL PHASE I

11/3/2017: CLOSING BRIEF OF THE SINGH PARTIES - TRIAL PHASE I

427 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/08/2016
  • Declaration (OF JEFF C. HSU, ETC. ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2016
  • Opposition Document Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2016
  • Proof of Service (RE: ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS STE PHANIE CHING-YEE CHAN AND CHRISTIA N STEPHEN MOLNAR'S OBJECTIONS TO E VIDENCE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY A) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2016
  • Points and Authorities (RE AN ATTY.TESTIFYING AS AN EXPERT IN A SJ/A, ETC. ) Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2016
  • Order (RE DEFT'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN OPP TO MSJ/MSA ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2016
  • Declaration (OF JEFF C.HSU RE [PROPOSED]ORDER ON OBJ.TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OR OPP.TO MSJ ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2016
  • Stipulation and Order Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2016
  • Stipulation and Order ( RE DEFTS OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUB. IN OPP TO THEIR MSJ ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2016
  • Declaration Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2016
  • Declaration Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

    Read MoreRead Less
183 More Docket Entries
  • 08/22/2014
  • Demurrer (TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2014
  • Notice of Reassignment and Order Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2014
  • Notice-Case Management Conference (set for 9/4/14 at 8:30 a.m. in this department ) Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2014
  • Motion to Transfer (COMPLICATED PI CASE TO IC COURT ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2014
  • Amended Complaint (UNVERIFIED 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2014
  • Stipulation and Order (TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT STEPHANIE CHING-YEE CHAN TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PENDING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2014
  • Proof of Service Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2014
  • Proof of Service (FILE BY FAX ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2014
  • Summons Filed Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2013
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC519223    Hearing Date: January 16, 2020    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

jasbir singh, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

stephanie ching-yee chan, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 519223

Hearing Date:

January 16, 2020

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

PLAINTIFF SINGH PARTIES’ MOTION TO TAX DEFENDANT STEPHANIE CHING-YEE CHAN GOLDSTEIN’S COST MEMORANDUM

Background

On August 22, 2013, Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Jasbir Singh, Jaswinder Kaur, Bola Properties, LLC, Jasmine Enterprises, Inc., and India’s Grill, Inc. (“India’s Grill”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this legal malpractice action on against, among others, Defendant Stephanie Ching-Yee Chan (“Chan”). On January 31, 2017, the Court issued an order granting summary judgment as to Chan. On March 23, 2017, judgment was entered in favor of Chan. Notice of the judgment was served on May 2, 2017 and filed on May 3, 2017. On May 3, 2017, Chan filed a Memorandum of Costs, seeking $19,975 in costs. On April 3, 2019, Chan (along with Defendant Christian Molnar) filed another Memorandum of Costs, seeking $28,630 in costs.

Plaintiffs now move to tax Chan’s costs. Chan opposes.

Discussion

A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs, including attorneys’ fees, as a matter of right, except as otherwise expressly provided by statute. ((See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032(a)(4), 1032(b), 1033.5.) Costs recoverable under section 1032 are restricted to those that are both reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1033.5(c)(2), (3).) Costs “merely convenient or beneficial” to the preparation of a case are disallowed. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(c)(2)); see Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 [expenses for attorney meals incurred while attending local depositions not “reasonably necessary”].)

“A ‘verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of [the] propriety’ of the items listed on it, and the burden is on the party challenging these costs to demonstrate that they were not reasonable or necessary.” ((Adams v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1486-1487 [italics and brackets omitted].) “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. 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.” (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 774.) Costs otherwise allowable as a matter of right may be disallowed if the court determines they were not reasonably necessary, and the court has power to reduce the amount of any cost item to an amount that is reasonable. (See Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 245 [finding that “the intent and effect of section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(2) is to authorize a trial court to disallow recovery of costs, including filing fees, when it determines the costs were incurred unnecessarily”].)

Plaintiffs argue that Chan’s 2019 memorandum of costs is both untimely and duplicative of the 2017 memorandum of costs. “A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk . . . or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first. ((Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a).) Here, notice of entry of judgment as to Chan was served on May 2, 2017. Thus, while Chan’s 2017 memorandum of costs is timely (because it was filed on May 3, 2017), Chan’s 2019 memorandum of costs is untimely (because it was filed on April 3, 2019).

Chan does not address the timeliness of her 2019 memorandum of costs other than to argue that “because judgment was not entered, both Chan and Molnar sought to consolidate their costs into one cost memorandum, following completion of trial.” (Opp’n, p. 4:4-5.) Chan also contends that Chan’s 2017 memorandum of costs was never entered by the clerk of the court, thus not making it duplicative.

It is unclear why Chan contends that judgment was never entered when judgment in Chan’s favor was, in fact, signed on March 20, 2017 and filed on March 23, 2017. It is also unclear why Chan contends that the clerk of the court did not enter judgment on Chan’s costs memorandum. The March 20, 2017 judgment reflects a costs award in the sum of $19,975 in a notation by the clerk of the court. Similarly, Chan’s 2017 cost memorandum (filed May 3, 2017) reflects a notation of the clerk of the court that judgment was entered on March 23, 2017. Therefore, Chan has already been awarded $19,975 in costs. To the extent that Chan is seeking additional costs by the filing of the 2019 memorandum of costs, Chan’s request is untimely. For the same reasons, to the extent that Chan is seeking the same costs by the 2019 memorandum as set forth in the 2017 memorandum, Chan’s request is improperly duplicative.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to tax Chan’s memorandum of costs filed April 3, 2019 is granted.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED: January 16, 2020

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: BC519223    Hearing Date: December 12, 2019    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

jasbir singh, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

stephanie ching-yee chan, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 519223

Hearing Date:

December 12, 2019

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

CROSS-DEFENDANTS AND DEFENDANTS SINGH PARTIES’ MOTION TO TAX CHRISTIAN S. MOLNAR’S COST MEMORANDUM

Background

On August 22, 2013, Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Jasbir Singh, Jaswinder Kaur, Bola Properties, LLC, Jasmine Enterprises, Inc., and India’s Grill, Inc. (“India’s Grill”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this legal malpractice action on against, among others, Defendant Christian Molnar (“Molnar”). On August 29, 2014, Molnar filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiffs for breach of contract. After the conclusion of trial, the Court found in favor of Molnar and against Plaintiffs. On May 8, 2019, the Court entered judgment in favor of Molnar and against Plaintiffs. On March 29, 2019, Molnar submitted a memorandum of costs, seeking $37,656.01 in costs.

Plaintiffs now move to tax Molnar’s costs. Molnar opposes.

Discussion

A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs, including attorneys’ fees, as a matter of right, except as otherwise expressly provided by statute. ((See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032(a)(4), 1032(b), 1033.5.) Costs recoverable under section 1032 are restricted to those that are both reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1033.5(c)(2), (3).) Costs “merely convenient or beneficial” to the preparation of a case are disallowed. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(c)(2)); see Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 [expenses for attorney meals incurred while attending local depositions not “reasonably necessary”].)

“A ‘verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of [the] propriety’ of the items listed on it, and the burden is on the party challenging these costs to demonstrate that they were not reasonable or necessary.” ((Adams v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1486-1487 [italics and brackets omitted].) “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. 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.” (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 774.) Costs otherwise allowable as a matter of right may be disallowed if the court determines they were not reasonably necessary, and the court has power to reduce the amount of any cost item to an amount that is reasonable. (See Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 245 [finding that “the intent and effect of section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(2) is to authorize a trial court to disallow recovery of costs, including filing fees, when it determines the costs were incurred unnecessarily”].)

Plaintiffs seek to tax certain items of costs for being excessive and unreasonable in amount and unnecessary to the conduct of the litigation. The Court notes that of the seven categories of items that Plaintiffs seek to tax, only three are addressed in Plaintiffs’ reply. Therefore, the Court construes Plaintiffs’ reply as a concession of the merits of the arguments raised in Molnar’s opposition regarding the other four items of costs. The three remaining items of costs in dispute are as follows:

  1. Conformed Copies Fees ($803.75)

First, Plaintiffs contend that Molnar cannot recover the fees incurred for retrieving conformed copies of filed documents because Molnar was served with copies of all documents filed in this matter. Molnar counters that the fees were necessary because Molnar was ordered to give notice of rulings made by the Court on numerous occasions. The Court does not find that obtaining conformed copies of documents in the Court’s files is necessary to the conduct of the litigation and exercises its discretion to tax those costs.

  1. Court Reporter Fees ($22,073.45)

Next, Plaintiffs seek to tax the court reporter fees. Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(1)) allows a party to claim as a cost court reporter fees “as established by statute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(11).) Plaintiffs argues that transcripts of court proceedings “not ordered by the court” are expressly disallowed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (b)(5).) Here, court reporter fees and transcript fees are two different items of costs. Therefore, the Court declines to tax these costs.

  1. Parking, Courier, and Postage Fees ($5,419.70)

Finally, Plaintiffs seek to tax costs for parking (local travel costs), courier fees, and postage as unreasonable. Molnar agrees that postage costs are not recoverable, so the Court exercises its discretion to tax those costs ($969.14). However, Molnar disputes that parking expenses or courier fees are not recoverable. Molnar argues that the courier fees should have been included in Item 1 of the memorandum of costs, because they represent fees for filing documents. Molnar also argues that travel costs are reasonable because they are necessary to litigating a case. The Court finds that the courier fees are reasonable and declines to tax those costs. However, the parking and other travel costs are not reasonable, and the Court exercises its discretion to tax those costs ($2,834.56). (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993)

19 Cal.App.4th 761, 775-776 [“Routine expenses for local travel by attorneys or other firm employees are not reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation.”].)

Plaintiffs argue that the costs should also be apportioned so that India’s Grill is only responsible for 9% of the total costs because India’s Grill was found to be responsible for approximately 9% of the total judgment. In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek an apportionment among the five defendants such that India’s Grill is responsible for only 20% of the costs. Apportionment is proper “[w]hen a prevailing party has incurred costs jointly with one or more other parties who are not prevailing parties.” ((Charton v. Harkey (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 730, 743-744.) And in those cases, the court “must apportion the costs between the parties [based on the reason the costs were incurred and whether they were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation by the jointly represented party who prevailed.]” ((Id. at p. 744 [brackets in original].) Here, there is only one prevailing party, Molnar, and there is no evidence that his costs were incurred jointly with any other non-prevailing parties. Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion not to apportion the costs among the defendants.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to tax costs is granted in part. The amount of $3,638.31 is deducted from Molnar’s costs award, leaving a total of $34,017.70 awardable to Molnar for costs.

Molnar is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED: December 12, 2019

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court