JENNIFER PACELLI VS NIC'S BEVERLY HILLS

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC613552    Hearing Date: November 01, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Strike Costs & Request for Sanctions

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

BACKGROUND

On March 16, 2016, Plaintiff Jenniefer Pacelli (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants NIC’s Beverly Hills and DOES 1 through 10, asserting causes of action for negligence, assault, and battery.

On April 25, 2016, Defendant NIC’s Beverly Hills filed an answer to the complaint.

On January 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, identifying Defendant Christopher Turpin (“Defendant”) as DOE 1.

On February 21, 2018, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint. Defendant also filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff and ROES 1 through 20, asserting causes of action for negligence, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On April 11, 2018, the Court granted Defendant NIC’s Beverly Hills’ motion for summary judgment.

On July 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed an answer to the cross-complaint.

On August 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case.

On August 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal (signed by Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant), dismissing the entire action with prejudice.

On September 4, 2019, Defendant filed and served a Memorandum of Costs.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Plaintiff moves for an order striking Defendant’s Memorandum of Costs. Plaintiff also moves for an award of monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,580.00.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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).” (CRC 3.1700(b)(1).)

“Unless objection is made to the entire cost memorandum, the motion to strike or tax costs must refer to each item objected to by the same number and appear in the same order as the corresponding cost item claimed on the memorandum of costs and must state why the item is objectionable.” (CRC 3.1700(b)(2).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Jenniefer Pacelli (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order striking the Memorandum of Costs filed by Defendant Christopher Turpin (“Defendant”) on September 4, 2019. Plaintiff also moves for an award of sanctions in the amount of $1,580.00.

Plaintiff is entitled to an order striking Defendant’s Memorandum of Costs. Plaintiff submitted evidence that the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and General Release (“Settlement Agreement”). (Declaration of Arzoomanian ¶3; Exhibit B.) Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant agreed to release his claims against Plaintiff, including any costs. The Settlement Agreement provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Christopher L. Turpin (Defendant/Cross Complainant) hereby release and forever discharge Jenniefer Pacelli (Plaintiff/Cross Defendant)…of and from any and all claims, actions, causes of action, demands, rights, damages, costs, loss of service, expenses and compensation whatsoever, which Christopher L. Turpin (Defendant/Cross Complainant) now have or which may hereafter accrue on account of or in any way growing out of any and all known and unknown, damages and the consequences thereof relating to the incident which alleged occurred on March 6, 2015, as more fully described in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC613552…”

(Declaration of Arzoomanian §3; Exhibit B.) (Emphasis Added.)

Defendant concedes the parties reached an agreement to dismiss their respective actions and basically do a “walk away.” Defendant also concedes he signed the Settlement Agreement. (Opposition, pg. 3.)

Defendant argues the Settlement Agreement is silent as to costs. (Opposition, pg. 3.) However, as discussed above, under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant agreed to release his claims against Plaintiff, including costs.

Defendant also argues Plaintiff did not properly challenge his claimed costs. However, Plaintiff, via the instant motion, objected to the entire Memorandum of Costs by arguing Defendant is not entitled to any costs.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s Memorandum of Costs is granted. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied. Plaintiff did not cite to case law or authority to support the request for sanctions.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.