Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/02/2021 at 12:00:10 (UTC).

REBECCA A. RICKLEY, ET AL., VS JACOB COHAN, ET AL.,

Case Summary

On 11/06/2015 REBECCA A RICKLEY, filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against JACOB COHAN, . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CRAIG D. KARLAN and LISA HART COLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4970

  • Filing Date:

    11/06/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CRAIG D. KARLAN

LISA HART COLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

RICKLEY REBECCA A.

ROIT NATASHA

Defendants

COHAN JACOB

NAHAMIA JACOB

OCEAN VIEW CAPITAL LLC

SOUTHLAND CIVIL ENGINEERING AND SURVEY

MAR LARRY P.E. (DOE 2)

PAUL A LEWIS (DOE 3)

PAUL A LEWIS DOE 3

BOODAIE SARAH

JCA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

PETER COHEN

MAR LARRY P.E. DOE 2

COHEN PETER

BOODAIE JOSEPH

Not Classified By Court

CONNOR JACQUELINE A.

JOSEPH BOODAIE AND SARA BOODAIE

JACQUELINE A. CONNOR

RICHARD STONE ADR SERVICES INC.

CONNOR JACQULINE A.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

ROIT NATASHA LAW OFFICES OF

ROIT NATASHA

Defendant and Not Classified By Court Attorneys

TURNER AUBERT & FRIEDMAN

VALENSI ROSE

STEWART BRIAN K.

MURCHISON & CUMMING LLP

REED NANETTE G.

TURNER FRIEDMAN MORRIS & COHAN

JENNINGS MARC J.

SENKFOR BURTON MARK

BRIAN K. STEWART

BURTON MARK SENKFOR ESQ.

COLLINS COLLINS MUIR & STEWART LLP

JENNINGS MARC JUSTIN

MARC J. JENNINGS

MARK R. STAPKE

MORRIS STEVEN

MORRIS STEVEN ALBERT

STAPKE MARK ROBERT

 

Court Documents

Complaint

11/6/2015: Complaint

Reply - REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

4/9/2021: Reply - REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (BOODAIE)

4/1/2021: Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (BOODAIE)

Notice - NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

11/10/2016: Notice - NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DEFAULT ENTERED

1/11/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DEFAULT ENTERED

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

1/11/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Other - - OTHER - EX PARTE APPLICATION

1/12/2017: Other - - OTHER - EX PARTE APPLICATION

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OBJECTION DOCUMENT FILED

3/8/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OBJECTION DOCUMENT FILED

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MOTION TO COMPEL

5/2/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MOTION TO COMPEL

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MOTION TO COMPEL

5/2/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MOTION TO COMPEL

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: REPLY

11/17/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: REPLY

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: CONSENT

4/13/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: CONSENT

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE

6/8/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6)

3/2/2020: Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JACOB COHAN

3/20/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JACOB COHAN

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/20/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

9/1/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

287 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/31/2022
  • Hearing05/31/2022 at 09:30 AM in Department N at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2022
  • Hearing05/10/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department N at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2021
  • Hearing11/17/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department N at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • Hearing10/01/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department N at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion - Other OF DEFENDANT JCA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • Hearing10/01/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department N at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2021
  • DocketNotice (of Setting Hearing Date re Guardian ad Litem for Sara Boodaie); Filed by Rebecca A. Rickley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2021
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department N, Craig D. Karlan, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Non-Appearance Case Review Re: PLAINTIFFS? MOTION FOR RECONSI...) of 07/08/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: PLAINTIFFS? MOTION FOR RECONSI...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2021
  • DocketRETURNED MAIL (Returned from Burton Senkfor)

    Read MoreRead Less
608 More Docket Entries
  • 12/09/2015
  • DocketNotice (NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO BANKRUPTCY COURT ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2015
  • DocketAmended Complaint ((1) (1st)); Filed by Rebecca A. Rickley (Plaintiff); Natasha Roit (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2015
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2015
  • DocketNotice of Related Case; Filed by Rebecca A. Rickley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2015
  • DocketNotice-Related Cases ( SC081696 ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2015
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2015
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2015
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Rebecca A. Rickley (Plaintiff); Natasha Roit (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2015
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2015
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Rebecca A. Rickley (Plaintiff); Natasha Roit (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC124970    Hearing Date: June 2, 2021    Dept: N

6/2/21

Dept. N

Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding (in the absence of Judge Craig Karlan)

Rebecca A. Rickley, et al. v. Jacob Cohan, et al. (SC124970)

_____________________________________________________________________________

MATTER: Motion for Order Striking Memorandum of Costs Brought by Dismissed Defendant, Sara Boodaie, or, in the Alternative, for an Order Taxing Costs, and/or for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem for Sara Boodaie (filed 3/24/20)

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Rebecca A. Rickley and Natasha Roit (self-represented)

RESP. PARTY: Defendant Sara Boodaie, by Burton Mark Senkfor

Tentative ruling

Plaintiffs Rebecca A. Rickley and Natasha Roit’s Motion for Order Striking Memorandum of Costs Brought by Dismissed Defendant, Sara Boodaie, or, in the Alternative, for an Order Taxing Costs, and/or for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem for Sara Boodaie is GRANTED in part; DENIED in part. The court reduces the documentary depository costs to $1,795.80. The request for costs of $6,330 for discovery referee fees is taxed. In all other respects, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. Defendant Sara Boodaie’s recoverable costs is reduced to $3,301.45.

Plaintiffs Rebecca A. Rickley and Natasha Roit to give notice.

Discussion

Plaintiffs Rebecca A. Rickley and Natasha Roit (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order striking or taxing the costs sought by Defendant Sara Boodaie (“Defendant”) in her memorandum of costs Defendant filed on March 9, 2020. Defendant’s memorandum sought costs for filing and motion fees in the amount of $1,315, fees deposition costs of $146.05, electronic filing or service fees of $44.60, and other fees of $8,454.30, for a total of $9,959.95 in costs.

Plaintiffs argue a guardian ad litem should be appointed to represent Defendant, who had Alzheimer’s, defense counsel was not entitled to incur costs without appointment of a guardian ad litem, and the costs incurred were not reasonably necessary to the litigation. Plaintiffs further seek to tax specific costs.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (b), states that “a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” A prevailing party is entitled to recover only those costs “necessarily incurred in the case” by that party or on that party’s behalf in prosecuting or defending the action. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(1).) The non-prevailing party may contest any items in the prevailing party’s memorandum of costs by a motion to strike or tax costs. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b); Code Civ. Proc., § 1034, subd. (a).) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, allowable costs includes costs that were “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation,” and the costs must be “reasonable in amount.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subds. (c)(2), (c)(3).)

“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.” (Ladas v. California State Automobile Association (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) “Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court,” but “because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute, a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized.” (Ibid.)

Guardian ad litem

Insofar as Plaintiffs move for appointment of a guardian ad litem, there simply is no legal authority to appoint a guardian ad litem for an individual who is no longer a party to an action. In fact, Code of Civil Procedure section 373, subdivision (c), specifically contemplates appointment of a guardian ad litem when “the person lacking legal competence to make decisions is a party to an action or proceeding.” Plaintiffs provide no authority supporting appointment of a guardian ad litem for an individual who is no longer a party, and the court ordinarily does not retain indefinite jurisdiction over a dismissed party.

Plaintiffs also fail to provide legal authority supporting their argument that Defendant was required to seek appointment of a guardian ad litem. Again, Code of Civil Procedure section 373, subd. (c), provides for appointment “upon the application of a relative or friend of the person lacking legal competence to make decisions, or of any other party to the action or proceeding, or by the court on its own motion.” There was no motion by Plaintiffs for such an appointment, nor was the court on notice that appointment may be necessary. As such, Plaintiffs’ contentions in this regard are rejected. Further, the court notes that Plaintiffs simply assert Defendant has Alzheimer’s. But they have not presented sufficient evidence that Defendant lacked legal competence to make decisions, as they point only to simple memory failings, which is not sufficient evidence to require appointment of a guardian ad litem. It follows that Plaintiffs’ contention that the costs incurred are not recoverable for lack of appointment lacks merit.

Specific items

Plaintiffs further argue that specific costs must be taxed.

Defendant seeks $1,315 in filing and motion fees. The filing and motion fees include a first appearance fee of $435, six motion fees of $360, a summary judgment hearing reservation fee of $500, and a summary judgment hearing rescheduling fee of $20. Plaintiffs take issue with the summary judgment fees because Defendant did not file such a motion, but the court finds these fees to be proper and necessary as the fee was incurred to reserve a hearing date when Defendant was still a party. As to the first appearance fee, paid with a demurrer, and the six motion fees, Plaintiffs contend these costs were incurred on behalf of two Defendants, so the costs should be apportioned. There is no legal authority supporting such apportionment because the motion would have been reserved without the other defendant, such that the cost was necessary to the conduct of the litigation on this defendant’s behalf. (See Charton v. Harkey (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 730, 745 [“when allocating costs between jointly represented parties, the court must examine the reason each cost was incurred, whether the cost was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation on behalf of the prevailing party, and the reasonableness of the cost”].) To be sure, such costs may not be recovered twice, but there is no basis for splitting the fee in half simply because it was incurred by two defendants represented by the same attorney where the cost incurred was reasonably necessary to Defendant’s conduct of the litigation.

Defendant seeks $146.05 in deposition costs for Defendant’s deposition. Plaintiffs do not take issue with these costs.

Defendant seeks $44.60 in electronic filing or service fees. Plaintiffs contend again that the fees were incurred by two Defendants, but for the same reasons discussed above, the court is not inclined to apportion the fee, as Plaintiffs request, without legal authority to do so.

Defendant seeks other costs of $8,454, which includes $6,330 in court-appointed referee fees and document depository fees of $2,124.30. Defendant has agreed to reduce the document depository costs to $1,795.80, and insofar as Plaintiffs argue the costs should be apportioned, that argument is rejected for the same reasons discussed above.

As to the fees for the discovery referee, case law provides that such fees may be recovered where they were necessary to the conduct of the litigation, which can be determined when a Court refers a case to a discovery referee. (See Baker-Hoey v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 592, 605.) Defendant contends Plaintiffs necessitated the appointment of a referee by their obstruction of discovery, but the court signed an order on March 29, 2018, indicating that the referee’s hourly rate would be split among the parties. Defendant’s argument that she did not notice this change in the order is unavailing, as she had ample opportunity to review the order and object. She did not do so. As such, the court stands by its prior order that the discovery referee’s fees are to be split among the parties. The court taxes this cost.

Plaintiffs Rebecca A. Rickley and Natasha Roit’s Motion for Order Striking Memorandum of Costs Brought by Dismissed Defendant, Sara Boodaie, or, in the Alternative, for an Order Taxing Costs, and/or for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem for Sara Boodaie is GRANTED insofar as the documentary depository costs are reduced to $1,795.80, and the request for costs of $6,330 for discovery referee fees is taxed; in all other respects, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. Defendant Sara Boodaie’s recoverable costs is reduced to $3,301.45.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where OCEAN VIEW CAPITAL LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SENKFOR BURTON MARK