This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/18/2021 at 20:36:01 (UTC).

OPTIONAL CAPITAL INC ET AL VS DAS CORPORATION ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/01/2011 OPTIONAL CAPITAL INC filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against DAS CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ELIZABETH R. FEFFER, MICHAEL JOHNSON, MICHELLE R. ROSENBLATT, KEVIN C. BRAZILE, BARBARA A. MEIERS and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4472

  • Filing Date:

    12/01/2011

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ELIZABETH R. FEFFER

MICHAEL JOHNSON

MICHELLE R. ROSENBLATT

KEVIN C. BRAZILE

BARBARA A. MEIERS

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Appellants and Respondents

LEE MARY

OPTIONAL CAPITAL INC.

ROGARI RALPH

DAS CORPORATION

Defendants, Appellants and Respondents

ALEXANDRIA INVESTMENTS LLC

ATKINGUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD

BOREL & BARBEY

DAS CORPORATION

DES GOUTTES & ASSOCIES

DOES 1-50

FIECHTER ROBERT

HONIG ERIC

KARACZYNSKI JOHN

KIM CHRISTOPHER

KIM ERICA

KIM HYUNG SOON

KIM KYUNG JOON

LEE BORA

MILLS WILLIAM

PARKER DAVID

PARKER SHUMAKER MILLS LLP

15 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

ROGARI RALPH ESQ.

ROGARI RALPH THOMAS ESQ.

LEE MARY

REHM JOANNA ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

TRAN LUAN K. ESQ.

LEE GREGORY M. ESQ.

MORRISON EDWARD F. JR. ESQ.

LEE JAMES MITCHELL

TUFFAHA JOEDAT HANI

WAXLER ANDREW J. ESQ.

FELDMAN KENNETH C. ESQ.

SMITH MATTHEW JAY

WEIR CHARLES E.

TRAN KINH-LUAN K. ESQ.

GREENBERG GORDON ALAN

 

Court Documents

ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

2/9/2018: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

Subpoena & Proof of Service

3/4/2019: Subpoena & Proof of Service

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DAS EX-PARTE APPLICATION

4/18/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DAS EX-PARTE APPLICATION

Notice - NOTICE OF RE-FILING OF DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS

4/24/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF RE-FILING OF DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS

Proof of Service by Mail

8/5/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF RALPH ROGARI, EXHIBITS FILED IN SUPPORT OF OPTIONALS OPPOSITION TO DASS MOTIONS FOR JNOV AND PARTIAL NEW TRIAL

8/15/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF RALPH ROGARI, EXHIBITS FILED IN SUPPORT OF OPTIONALS OPPOSITION TO DASS MOTIONS FOR JNOV AND PARTIAL NEW TRIAL

Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (Unlimited Civil) - NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL) NOA:10/11/19; "X"

10/18/2019: Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (Unlimited Civil) - NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL) NOA:10/11/19; "X"

Notice - NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HEARING DATE ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES FILED BY OPTIONAL CAPITAL

11/15/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HEARING DATE ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES FILED BY OPTIONAL CAPITAL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTER...)

2/10/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTER...)

NOTICE OF CASE RE-ASSIGNMENT

5/13/2014: NOTICE OF CASE RE-ASSIGNMENT

PLAINTIFF OPTIONAL CAPITAL INC.S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION.

5/6/2016: PLAINTIFF OPTIONAL CAPITAL INC.S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION.

JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO ADVANCE THE HEARING DATES ON DEFENDANTS PARKER SHUMAKER MILLS, LLP, DAVID PARKER AND WILLIAMS MILLS AND DEFENDANT AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD'S MOTIONS FOR A

6/27/2016: JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO ADVANCE THE HEARING DATES ON DEFENDANTS PARKER SHUMAKER MILLS, LLP, DAVID PARKER AND WILLIAMS MILLS AND DEFENDANT AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD'S MOTIONS FOR A

Minute Order -

11/30/2016: Minute Order -

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

4/3/2017: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

729 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/18/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Appendix CRC 8.124 Transcript Certified (NOA: 09/14/20 B307906); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Entry of Order Regarding Das Corporation's Ex Parte Application for an Order Vacating the Court's October 30, 2020, Assignment and Turnover Orders); Filed by Das Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for An Order Vacating the Court's October 30, 2020, Assignment and Turnover Orders) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Ex Parte Application for An Order Vacating the Cou...) of 11/10/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for An Order Vacating the Cou...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Das Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Joe Tuffaha in Support of Ex Parte Application for an Order Vacating the Court's October 30, 2020, Assignment and Turnover Orders); Filed by Das Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • DocketEx Parte Application (Ex Parte Application for An Order Vacating the Court's October 30, 2020, Assignment and Turnover Orders); Filed by Das Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketNotice (DAS Corporation's Notice of Deposit of $4,323,177.93 In Lieu of Appellate Bond Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 917.1 and 995.710); Filed by Das Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for an Order Setting the Amount of an Undertaking Given By an Admitted Surety Insurer, or Deposit Made With The Clerk In Lieu of a Bond, at $4,323,177.93) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
1,258 More Docket Entries
  • 02/08/2012
  • DocketDEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2012
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Eric Honig (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2012
  • DocketNotice of Status Conference filed; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2012
  • DocketNOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2012
  • DocketNOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2012
  • DocketSTIPULATION AND ORDER RE EXTENSION TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2012
  • DocketStipulation and Order; Filed by Eric Honig (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2011
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2011
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Optional Capital, Inc. (Plaintiff); Ralph Rogari (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2011
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. CONVERSION; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC474472    Hearing Date: June 26, 2020    Dept: 74

BC474472 OPTIONAL CAPITAL INC. VS DAS CORPORATION

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs and Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs

TENTATIVE RULINGS:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees. The motion for attorney fees is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $834,100.

Plaintiff requests attorney fees in the amount of $1,634,200 pursuant to Penal Code §496(c).

DAS Corporation’s Evidentiary Objections are all OVERRULED.

Lodestar

The court has reviewed the declarations and other evidence submitted by plaintiff in support of this motion. In calculating the lodestar for this case, the court subtracted fees incurred in the in rem forfeiture proceedings ($495,950) and reduced Mr. Rogari’s compensated time by 78 hours ($44,850) and Ms. Lee’s compensated time by 40 hours ($16,000) to account for the time spent opposing anti-SLAPP motions brought by other defendants. Because Mr. Rogari’s hourly rate ranged from $500 - $700 during the course of the litigation, the court finds his reasonable hourly rate is $575. The court therefore awards plaintiff fees in the amount of $834,100.

Negative Multiplier

The court makes the following findings: (1) “[t]his case involves an extremely tangled thicket of legal proceedings in both state and federal court, as well as in Switzerland” (Optional Capital, Inc. v. DAS Corp. (2014) 222 Cal. App. 4th 1388, 1392; (2) plaintiff’s counsel displayed a satisfactory level of skill in presenting this case at trial and counsel involved in pretrial litigation displayed a high level of skill in marshalling the evidence and positioning the case for settlement and eventually trial; and (3) plaintiff’s counsel accepted and worked on this matter on a contingency basis. The court finds the degree of difficulty in this case as well as the number of attorneys working on it does not justify the application of a negative multiplier.

Defendant’s request for a negative multiplier is DENIED.

2. Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs. The motion to tax costs is GRANTED IN PART. Costs are taxed $27,673.26. Plaintiff is awarded costs in the amount of $48,018.62.

Plaintiff requests costs in the amount of $75,691.88.

Defendant seeks to tax costs on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to meet one or more of the following criteria: (i) the costs are not allowable by statute, (ii) the costs are not reasonable in the amount claimed and (iii) the costs are not reasonably necessary to the conduct at-issue in the litigation. Defendant specifically notes that the Court should not allow recovery for all or part of Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of Plaintiff’s memorandum of cost. Defendant further notes that if the Court grants its post-trial motions, Plaintiff’s recovery, as the prevailing party will be eliminated.

Item 1: Filing and Motion Fees. Defendant seeks to tax $5,010.00 in filing and motion fees. As the remittitur awarded Defendant costs or in the alternative each party to bear its costs, plaintiff is not entitled to the $2,525 claimed here. Item 1 is taxed $2,525.

Item 2: Jury Fees.

Plaintiff seeks costs of $1,585.81 in jury fees. Defendant did not submit any evidence in support of its motion to tax these costs. The motion to tax item 2 is denied.

Item 4: Deposition Costs

Defendant claims Plaintiff overstated these costs and the amount should be reduced by $8,146.00 because: (i) Plaintiff made an unreasonable choice to depose former lawyers of both the Defendant and Plaintiff, (ii) Plaintiff made an unreasonable choice to record the deposition of Seung Pyo Hong and (iii) Plaintiff’s airfare and hotel costs surrounding the deposition of Mr. Yang were unreasonable. (MPA pg. 5 ¶3.) CCP § 1033.5(a)(3) states that travel expenses to attend a deposition, fees for interpretation for the deposition and video recording are allowable costs. As such Defendant’s conclusions regarding the depositions without supporting documentation do not warrant taxing Plaintiff’s costs. “[i]f the items appear to be proper charges, the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred by the defendant [citations], and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the [objecting party].” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) If the costs have been put in issue via a motion to tax costs, supporting documentation must be submitted, such as attorney declarations. (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267.) Defendant’s declaration did not dispute the reasonableness of the costs incurred in this item; however, Plaintiff’s declaration provided further explanation as to the reasonableness of the costs of Item four.

The motion to tax item 4 is denied.

Item 5: Service of Process

Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to substantiate these costs in any manner. Defendant notes Plaintiff failed to simply provide the dates of its service of process. (MPA pg. 6 ¶4.) Defendant misunderstands its burden as the party opposing the costs.

The motion to tax item 5 is denied.

Item 11: Models, blowups and photocopies of exhibits

Again, Defendant misunderstands its burden as the party opposing the costs. The motion to tax item 11 is denied.

Item 12: Court Reporter fees

Defendant argues the cost of a court reporter during a nine-day trial at a rate of $764.00 per day is approximately $6,876.00. (MPA pg. 6 ¶6.) In response, Plaintiff submitted its court reporter fees that total $11,412.75 for such costs; however, Defendant correctly notes that parking costs, transcript copies, and daily rough transcripts are not recoverable. Defendant further notes that the parties agreed that Plaintiff would cover the reporter fee costs, but does not submit any supporting documentation to substantiate its assertion.

Item 12 is taxed $2,837.75

Item 13: Interpreter fees

Defendant argues California Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5(a)(12) does not allow for the recovery of interpreter fees unless an indigent party is involved or an attorney tried the case pro bono. (MPA pg. 7 ¶7.) Moreover, Government Code §68092(b) states interpreters’ fees shall be paid, “In civil cases, by the litigants, in proportions as the court may direct, to be taxed and collected as other costs.” Though Plaintiff is not an indigent party, this matter is civil in nature. While defendant challenges the number of interpreters present, the court notes the nature of simultaneous interpretation requires interpreters to take freq uent breaks while working. The motion to tax item 13 is denied.

Item 14: Fees for electronic filing or service

Defendant withdrew this request.

Item 16: Other Costs

Defendant seeks to tax Item 16 in its entirety. Plaintiff seeks to recover costs for: (a) parking for court appearances and depositions ($1,366.00), (b) mileage for court appearances and depositions ($783.00), (c) photocopying ($134.69), (d) fax charges ($27.50), (e) calls to Credit Suisse and Switzerland ($178.93), (f) brief costs for the writ filed on February 17, 2014, ($442.88), (g) brief costs for appeal filed on April 27, 2015, ($139.26.) (h) costs for deposing Defendant’s expert witness ($4,000.00), (i) airfare and lodging for Mr. Yang ($5,181.27) and (j) airfare and lodging Mr. Jang ($10,311.90). (MPA pg. 7 ¶9.) Defendant argues California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(b) expressly denies the recovery of such costs, as they are unnecessary and unreasonable.

Parking and Mileage. Plaintiff argues the costs requested relate to depositions and hearings’ however CCP §1033.5 solely allows for the recovery of these costs as it relates to depositions and not hearings. Plaintiff attended a total of 89 travel days, five of which were for depositions. As such, the parking expenses for the deposition portion of those days of travel are $76.24 ($15.35 per day multiplied by 5 depositions) and $43.99 for the mileage expenses for those days of travel for the deposition portions ($8.80 per day multiplied by 5 deposition days.) As such, the Court awards Plaintiff $120.23. These items are taxed $2,028.77.

Photocopying. Plaintiff notes it incurred these fees when copying depositions for trial. (Optional’s Opposition to Motion to Tax Costs, Declaration of Ralph Rogari ¶9.) The motion to tax this item is denied. 

Fax charges. CCP §1033.5 does not authorize the recovery of such costs. (Optional’s Opposition to Motion to Tax Costs, Declaration of Ralph Rogari ¶10.) As such, the cost is not recoverable. This item is taxed $27.50

Calls to Credit Suisse and Switzerland ($178.93), brief costs for the writ filed on February 17, 2014, ($442.88) and brief costs for appeal filed on April 27, 2015, ($139.26). Plaintiff withdraws these costs. These items are taxed $761.07.

Costs for deposing Defendant’s expert witness. CCP §1033.5(b) explicitly prohibits the recovery of expert fees not ordered by the Court. This item is taxed $4,000.

Airfare and lodging for Mr. Yang ($5,181.27) and airfare and lodging Mr. Jang ($10,311.90). CCP §1033.5 does not authorize recovery of such costs. These items are taxed $15,493.17.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PARKER SHUMAKER MILLS LLP is a litigant

Latest cases where DAS Corporation is a litigant

Latest cases where ALEXANDRIA INVESTMENT LLC is a litigant