On 11/20/2015 PATRICIA MELTON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CHA HEALTH SYSTEMS INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK
CHA HEALTH SYSTEMS INC.
HOLLYWOOD PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER
KERENDI FAROUGH M.D.
CHA HOLLYWOOD MEDICAL CENTER L.P.
WILHEIM & WILHEIM PC
BALISOK & ASSOCIATES
WILHEIN STEVEN C.
BALISOK RUSSELL STEVEN ESQ.
PEDROZA KENNETH R.
DUMMIT BUCHHOLZ & TRAPP
NOWOTNY GEORGE EDWARD III
WELGAN ASHLEY JEAN ESQ.
CANTO II JAMES LOUIS ESQ.
4/3/2018: DECLARATION OF SERVICE
4/3/2018: DECLARATION OF CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR HOLLYWOOD PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS CHA HOLLYWOOD PRESBYTHRIAN MEDICAL CENTER, L.P. AND CHA HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMAR
5/25/2018: Minute Order
6/14/2018: DEFENDANT CHA HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.'S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
12/12/2018: Minute Order
6/18/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
4/18/2016: REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
4/12/2017: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ETC.; DECLARATION OF RUSSELL BALISOK IN SUPPORT
5/4/2017: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER RECONSIDERING OR CORRECTING THE COURT'S MINUTE ORDER OF APRIL 25, 2017 SUSTAINING DEMURRER BY CHA DEFENDANTS TO SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ELDER ABUSE (WELFARE & [NSTIT
5/23/2017: DECLARATION OF SERVICE
6/16/2017: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVEL REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE
6/30/2017: DEFENDANT HOLLYWOOD PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, ETC
6/30/2017: DECLARATION OF SERVICE
6/30/2017: DEFENDANT HOLLYWOOD PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, ETC
7/18/2017: DECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION BY DR. KERENDI FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT VOLUME 5
10/11/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
10/12/2017: ORDER ON DEFENDANTS CHA HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. AND CHA HOLLYWOOD MEDICAL CENTER, L.P.'S DEMURRERS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AFTER WRIT OF MANDATE
10/26/2017: DECLARATION OF SERVICE
Declaration (of Russell Balisok); Filed by Patricia Melton (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Patricia Melton (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by Patricia Melton (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Patricia Melton (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Separate Statement; Filed by Patricia Melton (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Declaration (Compendium of Declarations and Exhibits ISO MSJ); Filed by Farough, M.D. Kerendi (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Farough, M.D. Kerendi (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Separate Statement; Filed by Farough, M.D. Kerendi (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 09:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses ((Only ruling on Plaintiff's separate statement filed March 9, 2018)) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (Only...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DEFENDANT FAROUGH KERENDI, M.D.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
Receipt; Filed by Farough, M.D. Kerendi (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS UPON DEFENDANT CHA HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., DBA HOLLYWOOD PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTERRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Patricia Melton (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Patricia Melton (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS UPON DEFENDANT FAROUGH KERENDI, M.D.Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: 1. RECKLESS; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Patricia Melton (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC601979 Hearing Date: January 14, 2020 Dept: 47
Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Department 47
HEARING DATE: January 14, 2020 JUDGMENT: October 3, 2019
CASE: Patricia Melton v. CHA Health Systems, Inc. dba Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, et al.
CASE NO.: BC601979
MOTION TO TAX COSTS FROM COST BILL SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS CHA HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. AND CHA HOLLYWOOD MEDICAL CENTER, LP
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Patricia Melton
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants CHA Health Systems, Inc. and CHA Hollywood Medical Center, L.P.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiff alleged that Defendants refused to end life support for her husband based on her instructions pursuant to her durable power of attorney because Defendants wanted to prolong decedent’s life support to continue to receive Medicare payments until such payments were exhausted.
Plaintiff moves to tax costs from the cost bill submitted by the CHA Defendants.
Plaintiff Patricia Melton’s motion to tax costs from cost bill submitted by Defendants CHA Health Systems, Inc. and CHA Hollywood Medical Center, LP is DENIED.
Motion To Tax Costs
Untimely Opposition (and Motion)
Plaintiff is correct that Defendant’s opposition is untimely, having been served and filed only 8 days before the hearing. (CCP § 1005(b).) The Declaration of Attorney Evan Kalooky also refers to “attached documents” that are not attached, and no separate “Notice of Lodgment” appears in the Court’s file on eCourt as of January 10, 2020. However, the Court will exercise its discretion to consider the late-filed opposition.
Item No. 1 (Filing and Motion Fees).
Plaintiff moves to tax these costs in the amount of $3,400, on the ground that she has asked for supporting documentation and it has not been provided.
On a motion to tax costs, “the verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff has failed to meet that burden.
Defendants have listed the documents filed and their individual filing fees in their Memorandum of Costs. (Declaration of Russell Balisok, Exh. 9.) Given that these fees appear proper on their face, the burden is on Plaintiff to show that they were unreasonable or unnecessary. (Ladas v. California State Auto Ass’n (1993) 19 Cal.4th 761, 774-776.) Plaintiff has not done so.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to Item No. 1.
Item No. 2 (Jury Fees).
Plaintiff moves to tax these costs in the amount of $150, on the ground that she has requested documentation of a request for refund of jury fees and has not received it.
Jury fees are recoverable as of right pursuant to CCP § 1033.5(a)(1). Jury fees are refundable under certain circumstances under CCP § 631.3, but Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to suggest that they were refunded in this case, and Defendant has presented evidence that the jury fees were never refunded. (Kalooky Decl. ¶ 7.)
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to Item No. 2.
Item No. 4 (Deposition Costs).
Plaintiff moves to tax these costs in the amount of $9,052.36, on the ground that she has requested supporting documentation and has not received it.
The prevailing party is entitled to recover the costs of taking, video recording, and transcribing “necessary” depositions. (CCP § 1033.5(a)(3).) Plaintiff has not shown that these costs were not “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.” (CCP § 1033.5(c)(2).)
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to Item No. 4.
Item No. 8b (Expert Witness Fees).
Plaintiff seeks to tax these costs on the ground that Defendant’s § 998 offer cannot support a claim for these fees.
CCP § 998 provides:
If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff . . . shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer. In addition, . . . the court or arbitrator, in its discretion, may require the plaintiff to pay a reasonable sum to cover postoffer costs of the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the defendant.
(CCP § 998(c)(1) (bold emphasis and underlining added).)
Defendant has shown that it made a formal offer to compromise on August 17, 2018 – nearly one year before the first claimed cost for its expert. (Kalooky Decl. ¶ 6.) The Court does not find Plaintiff’s arguments that this was not a valid § 998 offer persuasive. The Court, in its discretion, will award these costs.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to Item No. 8.
Item No. 11 (Court Reporter Fees) or
Item No. 12 (Models, Enlargements, and Photocopies of Exhibits)
Plaintiff purports appears to seek to tax Item No. 11 in the amount of $1,534.52, but Defendant claims costs of only $235.01 in Item No. 11. Costs of $1,534.52 are claimed in Item No. 12.
As with Items 1, 2, and 4, Plaintiff argues that this entire amount is taxable because she requested documentation of them and the documentation was not provided. As with those Items, Plaintiff has not met her burden to those that these costs were unreasonable or unnecessary.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to Item No. 11 (or 12).
Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs is DENIED in its entirety.
Moving party to give notice, unless waived.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 14, 2020 ___________________________________
Randolph M. Hammock
Judge of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org