This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/07/2019 at 13:10:50 (UTC).

JENNIFER LITTLE VS JONATHAN LOPEZ ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/09/2015 JENNIFER LITTLE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JONATHAN LOPEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7325

  • Filing Date:

    10/09/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LITTLE JENNIFER

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-50

LOPEZ JONATHAN

LOPEZ. JAVIER

JAVIER LOPEZ.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

RUSSELL & LAZARUS

LAZARUS MARC

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BILLINGTON CRAIG ESQ.

LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN D. LEVINE

 

Court Documents

JOINT EXHIBIT LIST

1/11/2018: JOINT EXHIBIT LIST

MOTION NO. 2: DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT PLAINTIFF FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE NOT DISCLOSED IN DISCOVERY, ETC

1/11/2018: MOTION NO. 2: DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT PLAINTIFF FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE NOT DISCLOSED IN DISCOVERY, ETC

MOTION NO. 3: MOTION IN LIMINE TO LIMIT EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL CHARGES TO THOSE PAID OR OWED AT TIME OF TRIAL; ETC

1/11/2018: MOTION NO. 3: MOTION IN LIMINE TO LIMIT EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL CHARGES TO THOSE PAID OR OWED AT TIME OF TRIAL; ETC

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1/11/2018: JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

JOINT INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY

1/11/2018: JOINT INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY

Minute Order

4/18/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/25/2018: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/8/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

CIVIL DEPOSIT

1/29/2016: CIVIL DEPOSIT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1/29/2016: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

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

2/7/2017: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

NOTICE OF ORDER

2/15/2017: NOTICE OF ORDER

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO ATTEND AND TESTIFY AT DEPOSITION; ETC.

4/13/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO ATTEND AND TESTIFY AT DEPOSITION; ETC.

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

4/27/2017: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

Minute Order

7/13/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/25/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

9/13/2017: Minute Order

Notice

12/7/2017: Notice

18 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/21/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Jonathan Lopez (Defendant); Lopez. Javier (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (After Binding Arbitration) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • Minute Order ((Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4; (OSC RE Dismissal; Matter continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-07-27 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • MINUTE ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4; (OSC RE Dismissal; Continued by Court) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-04-18 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 93; Jury Trial (Jury Trial; Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
55 More Docket Entries
  • 01/29/2016
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Lopez. Javier (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2016
  • DEMAND FOR JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2016
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2015
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Jennifer Little (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Jennifer Little (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2015
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC597325    Hearing Date: November 30, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Tax Costs

Having moving opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 19, 2018, Plaintiff Shanna Rucker Raul Lopez, Adriana Osoy, City of Los Angeles, Wincal, LLC (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50.  The complaint alleges motor vehicle negligence, negligence, premises liability, and statutory liability for dangerous condition of public property -pedestrian November 9, 2016.

On May 20, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint and the motion was granted on July 17, 2020.

On August 4, 2020, judgment was entered for Defendant.  On August 6, 2020, Defendant filed a notice of entry of judgment.

On August 20, 2020Defendant 3,399.92

On September 3, 2020Plaintiff motion to strike and/or tax costs.

On September 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and related documents from the judgment.

PARTYS

Plaintiff requests strike tax Defendant’s costs.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civ. Proc.

(1) Costs are allowable if incurred, whether or not paid. 

(2) Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation. 

(3) Allowable costs shall be reasonable in amount. 

(4) Items not mentioned in this section . . . may be allowed . . . in the Court’s discretion.”

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.  This means that the prevailing party is entitled to all of his costs unless another statute provides otherwise.  Absent such statutory authority, the court has no discretion to deny costs to the prevailing party.”  (Nelson v. Anderson subd. (b). 

Initial verification of a bill of costs is prima facie evidence of the reasonable necessity of the claimed costs, and there is no requirement that copies of bills, invoices, statements or other supporting documentation be attached to the bill of costs; however, if costs have been put in issue by a motion to tax costs, the burden shifts to the party claiming costs to establish reasonableness.  (Jones v. Dumrichob

DISCUSSION

Item 1 – Filing and Motion Fees

First, as to the $513.75 fee against Plaintiff for Defendant’s filing of a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff argues that Defendant should have to pay $500.00.

As Defendant explains, the additional $13.73 is a result of a credit card usage fee, which is imposed by the mandatory electronic filing at 2.75% of the motion fees.  Although Defendant could have used a e-check to minimize the fee expense at a flat rate of $1.00, the Court nonetheless finds that the use of a credit/debit card in the normal course of litigation is reasonable.

The additional $13.73 credit card transaction fee is reasonable.

Second, as to the $124.25 in miscellaneous court filing fees, Plaintiff argues that such fees are not itemized and seeks the Court to strike the amount.

As Defendant explains, the $124.25 represents all the base charges received from Nationwide Legal, LLC and One Legal for the filing of various documents, and which charges are levied by the Court.  Defendant adds that these charges are recoverable pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. a)(14).  The Court agrees with Defendant.

The $124.25

Item 4 – Deposition Costs , 4.e)

First, as to the transcription cost related to line items 4.a through 4.e, Plaintiff argues that all transcription charges are inflated and that presumes that additional charges other than regular deposition costs.  Plaintiff further argues that Defendant did not provide a

As Defendant explains, the depositions under line items 4.a through 4.e were necessary and appropriate to litigate this instant action.  Defendant adds that this case is a high damages case, where Plaintiff claims a traumatic brain injury.  Defendant argues that it has provided all relevant invoices for the transcription, which all show that the costs requested are not inflated.  The Court agrees with Defendant.  Defendant submitted all deposition transcription invoices related to this motion in its opposition as Exhibit C.  All invoices list the name of the witness deposed, number of pages transcribed, number of pages included as exhibits, and the cost of shipping and handling of each transcription.  (Opp., Exh. C.)  The Court finds that there is no indication of alleged inflated or additional charges as Plaintiff asserts.

The transcription costs as part of the total deposition costs is reasonable.

Second, as to the videotaping charges of the deposition of Plaintiff, Plaintiff argues that although videotaping is an allowable cost under Code of Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a)(3), it was not reasonably necessary in this case.  Modern juries expect video evidence.  

Service of Process Costs

As to the service of process costs for $127.00 for serving cross-complainant Raul Lopez [sic], Plaintiff argues that she should not be responsible for the cost because the service of process was not served on her, but on someone else.

As Defendant explains, the charge of $127.00 was for the service of a deposition subpoena for the deposition of Saul Martinez, a witness to the events related to the subject of this lawsuit.  

Both parties agree that Code of Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a)(4) allows service of process as an allowable cost.  The issue in dispute is whether service of a deposition subpoena is reasonable and necessary.  (Balfour, Guthrie & Co. v. Gourmet Farms .)  Here, Defendant asserts that service by a registered process server of a deposition subpoena of a percipient witness was both necessary and reasonable in litigating the lawsuit.  The Court agrees with this view.

The service of process cost of $127.00 is reasonable.

Ordinary Witness Fees

Plaintiff is correct to state that Gov. Code § 68093 limits a witness’s daily fee to $35 per day plus mileage actually travelled, both ways, 20 cents per mile unless otherwise provided by law.  Defendant correctly points the Court to Gov. Code § 68097.2which requires a payment of $275 per day to certain government employees, including police policers, to attend as a witness.

As to payment of $825.00 paid to three “ordinary witnesses,” Plaintiff argues that they must receive $35 per day for attending as a witness.  Plaintiff omits that these three witnesses are Los Angeles Police Department Officers.  Since the three witnesses fall under the purview of Gov. Code § 68097.2,

Witness appearance fee for $825.00 is reasonable.

As to the non-appearance fee relating to a third-party witness deposition, Plaintiff argues that the cancellation of this deposition was to accommodate the witness and that Plaintiff had no involvement in the cancellation. Plaintiff.

Fees for Electronic Filing or Service of Documents

As to the electronic filing or service of documents through an electronic filing service provider for $163.58, Plaintiff argues that Defendant did not provide a breakdown of what services that are included in the fees.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs motion to tax costs is granted .

Defendant’s charges for electronic filing fee of 8 are unreasonable and are taxed from the total cost of $5,399.92: a new total of $5,236.34.

Plaintiff is

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Case Number: BC597325    Hearing Date: February 04, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Tax Costs

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 9, 2015, Plaintiff Jennifer Little (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Jonathan Lopez and Javier Lopez (“Defendants”).  The complaint alleges motor vehicle negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on October 14, 2013.

On November 1, 2019, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $337,826.05 with 10% per annum from the date of entry of the judgment until paid subsequent to confirming an arbitration award on October 1, 2019.

On December 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs seeking $145,737.99 in costs.

On December 26, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to strike and/or tax costs.

Trial is set for May 26, 2019.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendants ask the Court to strike Plaintiff’s memorandum of costs.

LEGAL STANDARD

Allocation of costs in arbitration proceedings is governed by the parties’ agreement or the rules governing the arbitration proceeding, not the California Code of Civil ProcedureBritz, Inc. v. Alfa-Laval Food & Dairy Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1105, fn. 9.  Here, the parties stipulated to submit “all disputes, claims or controversies to neutral binding arbitration at JAMS” and to “the applicable JAMS Arbitration Rules and Procedures.”  Stipulation for Arbitration, Exhibit 6 to Plaintiff’s Opposition JAMS Arbitration Rules and Procedures, Section 24 (f ) and (g), Exhibit 7 to Plaintiff’s Opposition.

Costs incurred in judicial proceedings to enforce an arbitration award are recoverable by the prevailing party (Austin v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1812, 1815-1816), but Plaintiff’s Cost Memorandum does not include any such costs (e.g., filing fees for a motion to enforce the arbitration award).  

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to tax costs is granted.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BILLINGTON CRAIG ESQ.