PATRICIA MELTON VS CHA HEALTH SYSTEMS INC ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC601979    Hearing Date: January 14, 2020    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

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.

DISCUSSION:

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.

Analysis

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).

Conclusion

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