This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/02/2019 at 08:55:24 (UTC).

LAW OFFICES OF MARVIN L MATHIS VS LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A L

Case Summary

On 06/08/2015 LAW OFFICES OF MARVIN L MATHIS filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A L. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is TERESA A. BEAUDET. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4449

  • Filing Date:

    06/08/2015

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

TERESA A. BEAUDET

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

LAW OFFICES OF MARVIN L. MATHIS

MATHIS MARVIN L.

BECK THEREASA

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

CARTER SHAQWONNE R.

CARTER TOMMY R. JR.

DOES 1 TO 10

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. LOTTA INC.

LOTTA MICHAEL A.

CARTER SHAQWONNE RAE'NIECE

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

DOES 1 TO 10

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. LOTTA INC.

LOTTA MICHAEL A.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF MARVIN L. MATHIS

MATHIS MARVIN LAFAYETTE

SOLOMON T. HARRIS ATTORNEY AT LAW

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

LOTTA MICHAEL A. C.S.B.

MICHAEL A. LOTTA INC.

Other Attorneys

MULVANA JOHN CALFEE

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

1/18/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/19/2018: Minute Order

REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT (CCP ?63L MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORIT1ES; ETC.

3/13/2018: REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT (CCP ?63L MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORIT1ES; ETC.

Minute Order

8/1/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

11/1/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

12/14/2018: Minute Order

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

7/28/2015: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Minute Order

12/15/2015: Minute Order

ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

12/29/2015: ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

Minute Order

4/28/2016: Minute Order

Minute Order

4/28/2016: Minute Order

DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST

6/8/2016: DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST

DEFENDANT'S TRIAL BRIEF

6/8/2016: DEFENDANT'S TRIAL BRIEF

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

6/8/2016: JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Minute Order

6/15/2016: Minute Order

THIRD AMENDED JOINT LIST OF EXHIBITS

7/21/2016: THIRD AMENDED JOINT LIST OF EXHIBITS

Minute Order

11/16/2016: Minute Order

DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEMURRERS OF DEFENDANTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

6/23/2017: DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEMURRERS OF DEFENDANTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

131 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/16/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Order (re motion to strike or tax costs)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Notice of Motion (NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TAX COST, DECLARATION OF MARVIN L. MATHIS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES); Filed by Marvin L. Mathis (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2019
  • Motion to Tax Costs; Filed by Shaqwonne Rae'Niece Carter (Legacy Party); Tommy R. Jr. Carter (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • Memorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by Marvin L. Mathis (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2018
  • at 2:10 PM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2018
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order Re: Judgment for Plaintiff Law Offices Of Marvin ...) of 12/14/2018 and Judgment For Plantiff Law Offices of Marvin L. Mathis); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2018
  • Minute Order ((Court Order Re: Judgment for Plaintiff Law Offices Of Marvin ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
332 More Docket Entries
  • 07/20/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2015
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2015
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; CONVERSION; ACCOUNTING (UNLIMITED CIVIL ACTION)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Marvin L. Mathis (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC584449    Hearing Date: February 26, 2020    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

james jang,

Plaintiff,

vs.

catwalk to sidewalk, inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 584449

Hearing Date:

February 26, 2020

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO STRIKE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TAX, COSTS

Background

Plaintiff James Jang (“Jang”) filed this action on October 14, 2016 against Defendants Catwalk to Sidewalk, Inc. (“CTS”) and Billy Kang (“Kang”) (jointly, “Defendants”). On October 9, 2019, judgment was entered in favor of Defendants.

On November 14, 2019, Defendants filed a Memorandum of Costs, seeking $8,299.77 in costs.

Jang now moves to strike or tax Defendants’ costs. Defendants oppose.

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, subd. (a)(4), 1032, subd. (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, subd. (c)(2), (3).) Costs “merely convenient or beneficial” to the preparation of a case are disallowed. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (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 v. California State Auto. Assn., 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”].)

First, Jang argues that the Memorandum of Costs was untimely filed. “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 under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 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)(1).) Here, the clerk did not serve notice of entry of judgment. Jang does not offer any evidence that written notice of entry of judgment was served by either of the parties. Although the Court notes that Defendants did not file a notice of entry of judgment, Defendants assert that they served written notice of entry of judgment on Jang on November 14, 2019. (Lee Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendants do not attach a copy of this purported notice, nor did they file a proof of service. In any event, because the only evidence offered by any of the parties as to when notice of entry of judgment was served is Defendants’ testimony that it was served on November 14, 2019, the Court finds that the Memorandum of Costs, filed November 14, 2019, was filed within 15 days after service of written notice of entry of judgment and is thus timely.

Next, as to specific cost items, Jang seeks to tax the $2,550 requested for interpreter fees. Specifically, Defendants request fees for a certified or registered interpreter for the deposition of a party or witness. (Mem. of Costs, § 13(a).) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (3)(B), the “[f]ees of a certified or registered interpreter for the deposition of a party or witness who does not proficiently speak or understand the English language” is expressly allowed. Nevertheless, Jang argues that there was only one deposition in this matter, the deposition of Jang which lasted around eight hours. Jang contends that his deposition could not have required a $2,550 interpreter fee because typical full-day rates for interpreters are around $700. (Heath Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.)

Defendants counter that they incurred $2,200 in interpreter fees and present the invoices of the interpreter as evidence. (Lee Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. B.) But as noted by Jang in reply, the invoices show that Defendants incurred only $650 in deposition interpreting fees. The remaining $1,550 are trial interpretation fees, which are expressly allowed as costs but only for interpreting for an indigent person. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(12).) Defendants argue that the court nonetheless has discretion to award these costs because they are not expressly disallowed under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5. ((Seever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1558 [“If a specific cost item is not identified in either Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a), or subdivision (b), it may be awarded in the trial court’s discretion under section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(4), provided it satisfies the further requirement of section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(2), that it was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.”].) Jang does not argue that an interpreter at trial was not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. As noted by Defendants, the entire testimony of all parties and witnesses at trial was conducted in Korean. (Lee Decl., ¶ 5.) Therefore, the Court finds that the interpreter fees were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and exercises its discretion to allow the fees. Because Defendants concede that the $2,550 was requested in error, the Court will only tax costs in the amount of $350.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Jang’s motion to tax costs is granted in part. The amount of $350 is deducted from Defendants’ costs award, leaving a total of $7,949.77 awardable to Defendants for costs.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED: February 26, 2020

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court