This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/27/2019 at 06:53:53 (UTC).

ACTIVE TRANSPORT, LLC VS FRED M. BOERNER MOTOR CO.

Case Summary

On 04/10/2018 ACTIVE TRANSPORT, LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against FRED M BOERNER MOTOR CO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MELVIN D. SANDVIG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8429

  • Filing Date:

    04/10/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Chatsworth Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MELVIN D. SANDVIG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ACTIVE TRANSPORT LLC

Defendants

FRED M. BOERNER MOTOR CO.

RWC GROUP

MOKRI VANIS & JONES LLP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF TABONE

 

Court Documents

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

4/10/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/10/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice

4/10/2018: Notice

Legacy Document

4/10/2018: Legacy Document

Summons

4/10/2018: Summons

Legacy Document

5/4/2018: Legacy Document

Summons

5/4/2018: Summons

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/21/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Other -

7/2/2018: Other -

Answer

7/2/2018: Answer

Case Management Statement

8/23/2018: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

8/24/2018: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

9/7/2018: Minute Order

Stipulation and Order

4/11/2019: Stipulation and Order

Stipulation and Order

5/17/2019: Stipulation and Order

3 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, TRIAL DATES AND [PROPOSED ORDER]; Filed by ACTIVE TRANSPORT, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (To Continue MSC Hearing Date); Filed by ACTIVE TRANSPORT, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F47; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Trial Date Set) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-09-07 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2018
  • Case Management Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2018
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by ACTIVE TRANSPORT, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
3 More Docket Entries
  • 07/02/2018
  • Answer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2018
  • Notice of Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to set one Requests for Production and Production of Documents; Filed by FRED M. BOERNER MOTOR CO. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by ACTIVE TRANSPORT, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by ACTIVE TRANSPORT, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • Summons; Filed by ACTIVE TRANSPORT, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • Notice (of Case Management Conference); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by ACTIVE TRANSPORT, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: PC058429    Hearing Date: July 14, 2020    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 7/14/20

Case #PC058429

MOTION TO TAX COSTS

Motion filed on 12/23/20.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Active Transport, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Fred M. Boerner Motor Co. dba RWC Group

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order taxing all costs claimed by Defendant Fred M. Boerner Motor Co.

RULING: The motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part, as set forth below.

This was a breach of contract action arising out of repairs Defendant performed on Plaintiff’s truck. After a bench trial, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant on 11/13/19.

A prevailing party claiming costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment. See CRC 3.1700(a)(1). On 11/15/19, Defendant filed and served, by mail, written Notice of Entry of Judgment on Plaintiff. Defendant filed and served the subject Memorandum of Costs on 12/5/19. (See Jones Decl. ¶10; Bowmer Decl.).

The Court finds Defendant’s Memorandum of Costs to be timely. Although dealing with electronic service under CCP 1010.6, rather than mail service under CCP 1013, the court in Kahn (2015) 240 CA4th 227 found that the language of CCP 1013 was not ambiguous and that the extension of time provided by CCP 1013 did not only apply to the person being served. See Kahn, supra at 236. CCP 1013(a) extends by 5 days “any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period…after the service of the document” by electronic means. The Kahn court noted that “[b]y its plain language…the statute does not limit the extension to the party on whom the document is served.” Id. As such, Plaintiff’s request that the entire memorandum of costs be taxed or stricken on the grounds of untimeliness is denied.

Otherwise, Plaintiff fails to provide clear notice of the items it seeks to tax. The declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel implies that Plaintiff is challenging costs for service, travel costs related a deposition, costs for court call appearances, and costs to subpoena records. (See Tabone Decl. ¶¶7-10). However, the memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of the motion only specifically addresses exhibit costs, electronic filing fees, parking fees and expert witness fees. (See Motion Ps&As p.6:19-p.7:22). The reply only addresses costs related to exhibits and expert witness fees. (See Reply p.3:12-p.4:13). Plaintiff never refers to the costs it seeks to tax by item number.

As the prevailing party in this action, Defendant is entitled to recover its costs. (See Judgment Entered 11/13/19); CCP 1032(a)(4), (b).

Even though Defendant did not use all of its exhibits at trial, Defendant and its counsel could not have known which exhibits were necessary until after Plaintiff’s direct examination. Also, Defendant did not know that it was going to move for judgment until Plaintiff completed its case. As such, Defendant reasonably incurred the costs related to the exhibits and it would be inequitable to deny recovery for same. See Benach (2007) 149 CA4th 836, 856. As such, Plaintiff’s request to tax such costs is denied.

Electronic filing fees are also recoverable. CCP 1033.5(a)(14), (15). As such, Plaintiff’s request to tax such costs is denied.

Defendant requests a total of $6,332.00 in expert fees under Item 16 – Other. (See Memo of Costs filed 12/6/19, Attachment A). Defendant made its CCP 998 offer on 9/11/19. (See Jones Decl. filed 12/6/19 ¶6 and Ex.B thereto). CCP 998(c)(1) 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 not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant's costs from the time of the offer. In addition, in any action or proceeding other than an eminent domain action, 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. (emphasis added).

The invoices attached to attorney Todd Jones’ 12/6/19 declaration filed in support of Defendant’s memorandum of costs show that all of the expert fees claimed were incurred before the CCP 998 offer. (See Jones Decl. filed 12/6/19 ¶12 and Ex.F thereto). As such, Defendant’s expert fees are taxed in the amount of $6332.00. As such, item 16 in Defendant’s memorandum of costs is reduced to $658.68.