This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/08/2019 at 05:00:15 (UTC).

AMADA ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH OF

Case Summary

On 11/29/2017 AMADA ENTERPRISES, INC filed an Other - Other Judicial Review lawsuit against DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH OF. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Compton Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MAURICE A. LEITER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8983

  • Filing Date:

    11/29/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Other Judicial Review

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Compton Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MAURICE A. LEITER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

VIEW HEIGHTS CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL

AMADA ENTERPRISES INC.

AMADA ENTERPRISES INC. DBA VIEW HEIGHTS CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL

Defendants

DOES 1-10

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH OF THE STATE

Other

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

COHN JONATHON E.

COHN JONATHON ERIC

Defendant Attorneys

LAHANA MATTHEW (DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL)

LAHANA MATTHEW DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

 

Court Documents

Complaint

11/29/2017: Complaint

Unknown

12/5/2017: Unknown

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

4/17/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Case Management Statement

4/23/2018: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

5/9/2018: Minute Order

Case Management Statement

7/13/2018: Case Management Statement

Notice

7/16/2018: Notice

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

7/17/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Case Management Statement

2/1/2019: Case Management Statement

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/15/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice

2/26/2019: Notice

Motion in Limine

3/26/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

3/26/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

3/26/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

3/28/2019: Motion in Limine

Declaration

5/28/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

5/28/2019: Minute Order

Notice

5/28/2019: Notice

41 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (re Court's Review of Closing Argument Briefs Received on 5/24/19) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Notice (Amada Enterprises, Inc Document Inadvertently omitted from service and courtesy copy); Filed by AMADA ENTERPRISES, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review re Court's Review of Closing Argum...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Declaration (of Barry Coughlin); Filed by AMADA ENTERPRISES, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (re Receipt of Closing Argument Briefs and Supplemental Declaration) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review re Receipt of Closing Argument Bri...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Trial Brief; Filed by AMADA ENTERPRISES, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Brief (Closing Argument Brief by Defendant Department of Public Health); Filed by DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH OF THE STATE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (re Dr. Coughlin?s Supplemental Declaration)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • at 11:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
53 More Docket Entries
  • 04/17/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by AMADA ENTERPRISES, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A; (Case Ordered Reassigned; Case Reassigned for all purposes) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • General Denial; Filed by DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH OF THE STATE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by VIEW HEIGHTS CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL (Legacy Party); AMADA ENTERPRISES, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2017
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by AMADA ENTERPRISES, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by AMADA ENTERPRISES, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: TC028983    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: A

#12. Amada Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Public Health of the State of California

Case No.: TC028983

Matter on calendar for: Motion to Tax Costs

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

Resident-I lived at a skilled nursing facility operated by plaintiff Amada Enterprises, Inc., dba View Heights Convalescent Hospital ("Amada"). On the evening of July 5, 2017, Resident-I collapsed in the hallway of the facility near a nursing station. She was assisted to her room, where she lost her balance and was helped to the floor. Her condition deteriorated rapidly and, less than an hour after her first collapse, she was dead.

After an investigation, defendant Department of Public Health of the State of California ("DPH") issued a Class AA citation and $100,000 penalty against Amada, finding that Amada failed to provide proper and timely care, and that Resident- I died as a proximate result of those failures.

Amada brought this lawsuit challenging DPH's citation and penalty. The case proceeded to a non-jury trial on April 29, 2019. After the presentation of evidence the Court directed the parties to submit closing argument briefs by May 24, 2019, which the parties did. The Court reduced the Class AA citation to a Class A citation and imposed a $20,000 civil penalty on Amada.

Amada has now moved to tax costs. An opposition and reply have been filed and considered.

  1. Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 1032(a)(b) states that a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding, unless a statute expressly states otherwise. Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(a) lists the costs that are recoverable and includes attorney’s fees when they are authorized by either contract, statute, or law. (C.C.P., § 1033.5(a)(10).)

The memorandum of cost is a verified statement by the party, attorney, or agent that the costs are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(a)(1).) “If 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, and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the [objecting party].” (Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 698.) “[I]f the correctness of the memorandum is challenged either in whole or in part by the affidavit or other evidence of the contesting party, the burden is then on the party claiming the costs and disbursements to show that the items charged were for matters necessarily relevant and material to the issues involved in the action.” (Id. at 699.)

Per Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(c) provides: “(1) Costs are allowable if incurred, whether or not paid. (2) Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation. (3) Allowable costs shall be reasonable in amount. (4) Items not mention in this section . . . may be allowed . . . in the Court’s discretion.” (C.C.P., § 1033.5(c)(4).)

  1. Analysis

    DPH initially claimed $19,510.78 in total costs, but in its opposition retracted $1,900 in deposition costs. The Court previously ruled that DPH is the prevailing party, which defeats Amada’s arguments as to the DPH’s motion and filing fees. Remaining in contention are certain deposition costs, service of process costs, and attorney service costs.

    1. Deposition Costs

DPH’s attached invoice for the deposition of Karen Lee shows the correct number is $356.85, not $365.85. Additionally, the invoice for deposition transcripts from the depositions of Barbara Hasley, Obianuju Okolo, and Lorraine Nguyen was reduced by $207.29. (Decl. Wessel, pg. 5­–7.) The $15.45 document subpoena to St. Francis is also struck as investigatory. (C.C.P. § 1033.5(b)(2).)

Subtotal taxed: $232.24

    1. Service of Process Costs

Amada’s motion argues 18 of the service of process costs are improper. The memorandum of cost did not specify the method of service, resulting in the burden of proving the reasonableness of these costs swinging back to DPH. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 132.) Many of the fees represent personal service: “Messenger fees are not expressly authorized by statute, but may be allowed in the discretion of the court. [Citations.]” (Ibid.). The Court finds DPH’s personal service of trial subpoenas to be reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount (items 6–17), but is unconvinced that items 1–5 or 18 were necessary. Serving documents at the last minute can be differentiated from ensuring your witnesses appear at trial. As to cost item 18, using some of the medical documents at trial does not justify the costs of the whole.

Subtotal taxed: $691.50

    1. Attorney Service Costs

These costs are found in item 16 of the memorandum of costs. The post-electronic switch messenger fees for the delivery of the supplemental trial brief is denied. The filing fees and pre-switch courtesy copy, however, are allowable and reasonably necessary. (C.C.P. § 1033.5(a)(1).)

Subtotal taxed: $95.00

Total taxed: $1,018.74 + conceded $1,900 = $2,918.74

  1. Ruling

    The motion to tax is granted in the amount of $2,918.74. DPH is awarded $16,592.04 in costs.

    Next dates:

    Notice: