This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/04/2020 at 10:58:26 (UTC).

BRETT LUEBKE VS AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CA ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/01/2017 BRETT LUEBKE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3628

  • Filing Date:

    06/01/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Appellant

LUEBKE BRETT

Defendants and Respondents

YIN TONG

DOES 1 TO 25

AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

BRENT AIR TOWING INC. (DOE 1)

BRENT AIR TOWING INC. DOE 1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MAURO FIORE JR LAW OFFICES OF

FIORE MAURO JR.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

FORD WALKER HAGGERTY & BEHAR LAW O/O

HORTON OBERRECHT KIRKPATRICK & MARTHA

KARLIN CHARLES I.

 

Court Documents

Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103

12/4/2019: Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103

Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (Unlimited Civil) - NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL) NOA:12/4/19

12/6/2019: Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (Unlimited Civil) - NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL) NOA:12/4/19

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

11/22/2019: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER WITH JUDGMENT ATTACHED

11/15/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER WITH JUDGMENT ATTACHED

Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6 PURSUANT TO CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 2033.300

10/7/2019: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6 PURSUANT TO CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 2033.300

Declaration - DECLARATION OF CHARLES I. KARLIN IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6

10/1/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF CHARLES I. KARLIN IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX-PARTE TO SHORTEN TIME ON MOTION FOR LEAVE

9/6/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX-PARTE TO SHORTEN TIME ON MOTION FOR LEAVE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TRIAL CONTINUANCE OR IN...)

8/15/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TRIAL CONTINUANCE OR IN...)

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

8/12/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

8/12/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Separate Statement

7/30/2019: Separate Statement

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ERRATA

8/8/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ERRATA

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

4/17/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Separate Statement

4/18/2019: Separate Statement

Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

4/26/2019: Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

6/19/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

7/2/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

61 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/01/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; (OSC RE Dismissal) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2020
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Nunc Pro Tunc Order); Filed by Brett Luebke (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Automobile Club of Southern California (Defendant); Brent Air Towing, Inc. (Doe 1) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Appendix CRC 8.124 Transcript Certified (NOA 12/4/19 B302782); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2020
  • DocketNotice (Respondent's Notice Electing to Use an Appendix); Filed by Automobile Club of Southern California (Respondent); Brent Air Towing, Inc. (Doe 1) (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2020
  • Docketat 11:00 AM in Department 27, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Nunc Pro Tunc Order) of 01/15/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
93 More Docket Entries
  • 06/19/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Automobile Club of Southern California (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2018
  • DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Brett Luebke (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious Name)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Brett Luebke (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Brett Luebke (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC663628    Hearing Date: January 14, 2020    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS

On October 21, 2016, Plaintiff Brett Luebke (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Automobile Club of Southern California and Tong Yin for negligence arising from an automobile collision while Plaintiff was waiting for roadside assistance on the side of the freeway. Brent-Air Towing Inc. was named as Doe 1. Bel-Air Towing, Inc. and Automobile Club of Southern California (collectively, “Defendants”) prevailed on summary judgment on September 11, 2019. Judgment was entered on October 29, 2019. Defendants filed their Memorandum of Costs on November 22, 2019, seeking $6,654 in costs. Plaintiff filed a motion to tax costs on December 3, 2019.

Generally, a prevailing party will be entitled to recover its costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b).) A party challenging the amounts claimed may file a motion to tax costs, which must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. (Cal. Rules of Court., rule 3.1700(b)(1), 8.278(c)(2).) “Unless objection is made to the entire cost memorandum, the motion . . . must refer to each item objected to by the same number and appear in the same order as the corresponding cost item claimed on the memorandum of costs and must state why the item is objectionable.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(2).) “In ruling upon a motion to tax costs, the trial court's first determination is whether the statute expressly allows the particular item and whether it appears proper on its face. If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show the costs to be unnecessary or unreasonable.” (Foothill-De Anza Cmty. College Dist. v. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 29-30.) “Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court.” (Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.)

Plaintiff challenges Defendants’ filing and motion fees, deposition costs, service of process, and other costs in the total amount of $4,896.

Defendant claims $1,325 in filing and motion fees. Plaintiff argues this amount should be taxed $350, leaving $935. Plaintiff argues Defendants cannot recover costs for two proposed orders and stipulations to continue trial, a notice of change of address, notices of ruling on new trial dates, reply briefs, and ex parte applications. Plaintiff argues these motions were merely convenient or beneficial to the preparation of the case and that rescheduling fees are not recoverable. However, filing and and motion fees are permitted by Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(1). Plaintiff did not establish that these fees were not reasonably necessary to the litigation.

Defendants also claim $150 in jury fees. Plaintiff argues that the deposit of jury fees is not recoverable because no jury was empaneled. Plaintiff cites to no legal authority supporting his position that a jury must actually be empaneled for costs to be recoverable.

Plaintiff argues that $1,550 in deposition costs should be taxed in connection with three depositions. First, Plaintiff argues it was not necessary to videotape the deposition of Plaintiff. Section 1033.5(a)(3)(A) states a party may recover the “taking, video recording, and transcribing” of necessary depositions and does not require that the deposition be of a trial witness (which Plaintiff likely would have been given that he was the plaintiff). Plaintiff noticed the depositions of the other two witnesses, showing that Plaintiff believed their depositions were necessary enough to spend the time and money to take their depositions.

Defendants lists $159 in costs incurred in service of process fees for defendant Tong Yin (“Yin”) and Plaintiff’s wife, Kristin Luebke. Apparently Defendant served a subpoena on Ms. Luebke. It is not clear how the fee was incurred in connection with Yin. He was a party to the litigation and therefore, Defendant did not need to serve a subpoena on him. Therefore the motion is granted with respect to the $104 regarding Yin.

Plaintiff also seeks to tax costs Defendants claim in subpoenaing documents. However, Defendants’ subpoenas of Plaintiff’s medical records was reasonable and necessary as Plaintiff placed his medical injuries at issue. Similarly, subpoenaing the traffic collision report and records of first responders such as the Los Angeles City Fire Department was also reasonable in a litigation involving a automobile collision.

Accordingly, the Motion to strike or tax the memorandum of costs is GRANTED in part. The total amount of costs is taxed by $104, leaving $6,550 in allowable costs.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.