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

Tentative Rulings

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

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.4^th 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.