This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/04/2019 at 07:30:45 (UTC).

CINDY NASH VS PAULINE ROMANO ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/19/2017 CINDY NASH filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against PAULINE ROMANO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7302

  • Filing Date:

    01/19/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

NASH CINDY

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 99

ROMANO PAULINE

ROMANO JOSEPH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

NOVAK SEAN M. ESQ.

THE NOVAK LAW FIRM P.C.

Defendant Attorneys

WANG CHRISTINA EMILY

AUSTIN BROWNWOOD CANNON & SANTA CRUZ

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR IDENTIFICATION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT

2/13/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR IDENTIFICATION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INDENTIFICATION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS;AND ETC.

2/13/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INDENTIFICATION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS;AND ETC.

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET TWO); DECLARATION OF SEAN M. NOVAK; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF $2,380.

3/7/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET TWO); DECLARATION OF SEAN M. NOVAK; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF $2,380.

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO); DECLARATION OF SEAN M. NOVAK; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF $2,380.OO AGAINST D

3/7/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO); DECLARATION OF SEAN M. NOVAK; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF $2,380.OO AGAINST D

WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

3/14/2018: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

4/26/2018: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

5/7/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

5/7/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

7/5/2018: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

Minute Order

12/6/2018: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

12/6/2018: Ex Parte Application

Ex Parte Application

3/15/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

3/15/2019: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. PREMISES LIABILITY; 2. NEGLIGENCE

1/19/2017: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. PREMISES LIABILITY; 2. NEGLIGENCE

SUMMONS

1/19/2017: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

1/30/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

2/21/2017: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

8/1/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/16/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For order shortening time or in the alternative an order to continue the trial date) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (For order shortening time or in the alternative an order to continue the trial date); Filed by Pauline Romano (Defendant); Joseph Romano (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application For order shortening time or ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Ex-Parte Proceedings - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2018
  • Minute Order ((Ex-Parte Proceedings)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2018
  • Ex Parte Application (an order shortening time or in the alternative an order to continue the trial date); Filed by Pauline Romano (Defendant); Joseph Romano (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
29 More Docket Entries
  • 02/21/2017
  • General Denial; Filed by Pauline Romano (Defendant); Joseph Romano (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2017
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2017
  • Receipt; Filed by Pauline Romano (Defendant); Joseph Romano (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Cindy Nash (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Cindy Nash (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2017
  • PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. PREMISES LIABILITY; 2. NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Cindy Nash (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC647302    Hearing Date: March 16, 2020    Dept: SWE

CINDY NASH vs. PAULINE ROMANO, JOSEPH ROMANO BC647302

Motion of plaintiff Cindy Nash to tax and/or strike costs, denied.

Moving party plaintiff Cindy Nash alleges two grounds to support this motion:

  1. Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs was untimely filed.

  2. The CCP §998 offer includes expert fees incurred before the service of the §998 demand.

I. TIMELINESS OF COST MEMORANDUM

As to the time of service of the Memorandum of Costs. On 11.22.2019 the clerk of the court filed and served Notice of Entry of Judgment on Plaintiff. On December 9, 2019, defendants filed and served their Memorandum of Costs. California Rules of Court §3.1700(a)(1) requires a memorandum of costs within 15 days of mailing the notice of entry, etc. In this instance, the 15th day fell on Saturday, December 7, 2019 and therefore the next court day was Monday, December 9, 2019. See CCP §12a for computing dates with holidays.

II. INCLUDED EXPERT FEES

As to the expert costs included in the CCP §998 offer, plaintiff fails to cite any authority to support the contention that expert fees under §998 are limited to those incurred from the date of the offer.

Defendants cite and rely on Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v City of Los Angeles (2006) 39 Cal.4th 507, 532-33 that “[t]he first sentence quoted above limits recoverable “costs” to those incurred from the time of the offer. The second sentence, which relates to the “costs of the services of expert witnesses”, contains no such limitation. The court of appeal concluded that the omission in the second sentence was intentional and that [defendant] was entitled to both pre-offer and post offer expert witness fees.”

Plaintiffs’ Other Arguments:

Plaintiff relies in his motion to tax/strike that the “offeree must have the opportunity to recognize that the offer is being made formally and pursuant to statute. This conclusory assertion is without merit and is not substantiated factually or by authority.

Plaintiff also relies on the contention that the §998 Offer was “not meaningful”. This argument is lacking in reasonableness and authority. The evidence of the circumstances relating to plaintiff’s injury, presented at trial, are self-evident that the §998 Offer was clearly within reason and plaintiff had every reason to know the offer was reasonable and in good faith.

No valid challenge to defendants’ costs has been filed. Where items appear on their face to be proper charges, the verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety. Jones v Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266. The burden is on the party moving to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary. Jones, Id. @1266. Plaintiff offers nothing more than unsupported contention and argument.

Attorney Sean Novak

The Novak Law Firm, PC

8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 634

Beverly Hills, CA 90211

Attorney Brandye Foreman

Kirk & Myers

707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500

Los Angeles, CA 90017