This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/11/2018 at 08:47:41 (UTC).

NEGIN BEHAZIN M.D. VS DIGNITY HEALTH, INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/01/2016 NEGIN BEHAZIN M D filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against DIGNITY HEALTH, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MICHAEL P. VICENCIA, ROSS KLEIN, RAMONA G. SEE and ROBERT B. BROADBELT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0566

  • Filing Date:

    04/01/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MICHAEL P. VICENCIA

ROSS KLEIN

RAMONA G. SEE

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

NEGIN BEHAZIN M.D.

Defendants

DOES 1- 50 INC.

ANDREW BURG M.D.

SARAH STRUBE M.D.

CHESTER CHOI M.D.

DIGNITY HEALTH INC DBA ST MARY MED CENTER

BETTINA KEHRLE M.D.

DOES 1 TO 50

DIGNITY HEALTH INC.

ST MARY MED CENTER

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

BOHM LAW GROUP (RACHAELSAUER )

BOHN LAW GROUP

Defendant Attorney

BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT LLP

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/02/2018
  • at 08:30 am in Department M, Ramona G. See, Presiding; Motion to Compel - Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • Opposition ( TO PTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ANDREW C. BURG, M.D., CHESTER CHOI, M.D. BAHMN CHAVOSHAN, M.D., SARAH STRUBE D.O. AND BRIAN RAYHANABAD, M.D.); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2018
  • Opposition ( TO PTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ANDREW C. BURG, M.D., CHESTER CHOI, M.D., BAHMAN CHAVOSHAN, M.D., SARAH STRUBE, D.O. AND BRIAN RAYHANABAD ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2018
  • Opposition ( TO PTF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF DEFT'S ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • Declaration ( OF BRADLEY J. MANCUSO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFT'S ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • Miscellaneous-Other ( SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF DEFT'S ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • Motion to Compel ( DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF DEFT'S AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • at 08:30 am in Department B, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Exparte proceeding - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • Ex-Parte Application (TO CONTINUE TRIAL & DEFT'S MSJ ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • Opposition (to Plaintiff's ex parte ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
95 More Docket Entries
  • 07/01/2016
  • Answer (DIGNITY HEALTH INC. ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2016
  • Answer (DEF. DIGNITY HEALTH'S VERFIED ANSWER TO PLNTF'S VERFIED COMPLAINT ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2016
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (P.S. SUMMONS, VERIFIED COMPLAINT ET AL P.S. BETTINA KEHRLE M.D. INDIV SUB SERVED- ELLEN JARMILLO RISK MANAGER - 5-19-16 + DECL OF DIL + DECL OF MAIL); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2016
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (p.s. SUMMONS, VERIF. COMP, ETC. P.S. SARAH STRUBE M.D. -INDIV SERVED- ELLEN JARAMILLO, RISK MANAGER 5-19-16 + DECL OF DIL + DECL OF MAIL); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2016
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (P.S. SUMMONS, VERIF. COMPLAINT P.S. ANDREW BURG. M.D. SUB SERVED, MARTHA MCHON, PERSONAL ASST 5-19-16 + DECL OF DILL + DECL OF MAIL); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2016
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (P.S. SUMMONS, VERIF. COMP P.S. CHESTER CHOI M.D. SUB SERVED ALLEN JARMILLO, RISK M ANAGER 6-19-16 _+ DECL OF DILL + DECL OF MAIL); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2016
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (P.S. SUMMONS, VERIFIED COMP ; STIP; MO'S IN LIMINE; ETC. P.S. DIGNITY HEALTH INC DBA ST MARY MEDICAL CENTER :: TO SERVE AGTENT - RICK GROSSMNA- SUB SRVED ADRAIN BETTA PARALEGAL 5-19-16+MAI); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2016
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2016
  • Summons Filed (ORIGINAL SUMMONS ISSUED AND FILED ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2016
  • Summons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: NC060566    Hearing Date: October 30, 2020    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka

Department B

Friday – October 30, 2020

Calendar No. 6

PROCEEDINGS

Negin Behazin, M.D. v. Dignity Health, Inc., et al.

NC060566

  1. Negin Behazin, M.D.’s Motion to Tax Costs

    TENTATIVE RULING

    Negin Behazin, M.D.’s Motion to Tax Costs is denied.

    “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).” Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 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.” Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(2).

    “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. Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 (internal citation omitted).

    Defendant Dignity Health dba St. Mary Medical Center's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted on September 18, 2018. Notice of entry of judgment was given on September 25, 2018. The judgment was recently affirmed on appeal. Thus, Defendant is the prevailing party and entitled to its reasonable costs. CCP § 1032.

Item 1: Filing and Motion Fees

“The following items are allowable as costs under Section 1032: (1) Filing, motion, and jury fees.” Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(1). Defendant seeks $1,435.00 in costs.

Plaintiff failed to meet her burden to establish that the costs were excessive or unnecessary. Plaintiff provided no support of her arguments through a competent declaration. See, County of Kern v. Ginn (1983) 19 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1113-14 (stating that moving party failed to meet its burden by mere allegations that depositions were not necessary without submitting any affidavit to support this conclusion.) Plaintiff fails to establish that the costs were unnecessary and not reasonably incurred. Plaintiff merely argues, in a conclusory manner, that some of the filings and ex parte applications were not necessary. However, Defendant has met its burden to establish that all the filings were reasonably necessary to the litigation. (Decl., Eric C. Schwettmann, ¶¶ 3-6.) Merely because Plaintiff believes that other tactics or procedures should have been implemented does not establish that Defendant’s filings were not necessary.

The motion to tax Item 1, in the sum of $1,435.00, is denied.

Item 4: Deposition Costs

The “[t]aking, video recording, and transcribing necessary depositions, including an original and one copy of those taken by the claimant and one copy of depositions taken by the party against whom costs are allowed” is an allowable cost. Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(3)(A).

Plaintiff moves to strike the amount of $20,234.20 for the deposition costs of Dr. Bettina Kehrle. Plaintiff argues that the deposition was not necessary to the litigation and that the expenses charged by Dr. Kehrle in the sum of $5,382.45 was excessive. Again, as noted above, Plaintiff failed to meet her initial burden by failing to support her argument with any competent evidence. However, Defendant has established that the deposition of Dr. Kehrle was necessary since she was a named Defendant, and by the time that she was finally served she had relocated to Germany. (Decl., Eric C. Schwettman, ¶¶ 7-8.)

Therefore, the motion to tax Item 4, in the sum of $20,234.20, is denied.

Item 5: Service of Process Costs

“Service of process by a public officer, registered process server, or other means” is an allowable cost. Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(4).

The Memorandum seeks $1,133.42 in service of process fees. Plaintiff contends that the amount should be taxed because “many of these costs were unreasonable.” (Motion, Pg 4, Ln 16.) Again, Plaintiff provided no competent evidence to support her conclusion that the costs were unreasonable. On the other hand, Defendant did provide evidence to show that issuing subpoenas to the prior employers were reasonable to establish Plaintiff’s earnings ability. (Decl., Eric C. Schwettman, ¶ 9.) There is nothing with respect to the costs of the service of process fees that appear unusually excessive, and Plaintiff has not met her burden to show that this amount should be taxed.

Thus, the motion to tax Item 5, service of process fees in the sum of $1,133.42, is denied.

Therefore, the motion to tax costs is denied.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.