This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 10:13:41 (UTC).

NICK KRUTHANOOCH VS GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/02/2018 NICK KRUTHANOOCH filed a Personal Injury - Elder/Dependant Adult Abuse lawsuit against GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RAFAEL A. ONGKEKO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2929

  • Filing Date:

    02/02/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Elder/Dependant Adult Abuse

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RAFAEL A. ONGKEKO

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

KRUTHANOOCH NICK

KRUTHANOOCH DANIEL

Defendants and Respondents

ADVENTIST HEALTH

GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER

ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/WEST INC

DOES 1 TO 100

ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/WEST INC DBA ADVENTIST HEALTH

Other

BULGER JIM ESQ.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

DOYLE CONAL

BULGER JAMES ESQ.

DOYLE CONAL FERGUS

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BLESSEY RAYMOND L. ESQ

BLESSEY RAYMOND L.

 

Court Documents

Declaration

7/18/2019: Declaration

Opposition

8/1/2019: Opposition

Minute Order

12/19/2018: Minute Order

Order

12/19/2018: Order

Ex Parte Application

12/19/2018: Ex Parte Application

Order

1/30/2019: Order

Separate Statement

4/18/2019: Separate Statement

Reply

4/18/2019: Reply

Objection

4/29/2019: Objection

Minute Order

6/3/2019: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

6/10/2019: Ex Parte Application

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

5/15/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER AND ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/WEST, INC., D/B/A ADVENTIST HEALTH'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

4/30/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER AND ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/WEST, INC., D/B/A ADVENTIST HEALTH'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

CIVIL DEPOSIT

4/24/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

DEFENDANTS GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER AND ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/WEST, INC., D/B/A ADVENTIST HEALTH'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT; ETC.

3/23/2018: DEFENDANTS GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER AND ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/WEST, INC., D/B/A ADVENTIST HEALTH'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT; ETC.

AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

3/6/2018: AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

2/27/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUMMONS

2/2/2018: SUMMONS

55 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/09/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 73 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 73 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 73; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (to Add Punitive Damages (Res ID5550)) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend to Add Punitive Damages ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2019
  • DocketReply (to Opposition to Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint); Filed by Nick Kruthanooch (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2019
  • DocketOpposition (to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Allege Punitive Damages); Filed by Adventist Health System/West Inc, (Defendant); Glendale Adventist Medical Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2019
  • DocketMotion for Leave to Amend (Complaint [CCP 425.14] (Res ID: 5550)); Filed by Daniel Kruthanooch (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (of Evidence); Filed by Daniel Kruthanooch (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 73; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 73; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ((1)Relief form the Court's June 10, 2019 Order; and (2) to Continue Trial Date) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
119 More Docket Entries
  • 02/21/2018
  • DocketNotice, Association of Counsel; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • DocketAssociation of Attorney; Filed by Nick Kruthanooch (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons (PARTY SERVED: GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER, A NON-PROFIT CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Nick Kruthanooch (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Nick Kruthanooch (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC692929    Hearing Date: July 23, 2020    Dept: 73

7/23/2020

Dept. 73

Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding

NICK KRUTHANOOCH v. GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER, et al. (BC692929)

Counsel for Plaintiff/moving party: Conan Doyle, Stephen Beke (Doyle Law); Jim Bulgar (West Seber Bulger, LLP)

Counsel for Defendants/opposing parties: Raymond Blessey, Evan Okamura (Reback, McAndrews, Blessey, LLP)

PLAINTIFF’S motion TO TAX Adventist’s COSTS (filed 03/24/2020)

PLAINTIFF’S motion TO TAX GAMC’s COSTS (filed 05/27/2020)

TENTATIVE RULING

Adventist’s Costs: The court denies the motion, except to reduce the amount of recoverable deposition costs by Adventist to $2,749.28.

GAMC’s Costs: The court denies the motion, except to reduce the amount of recoverable deposition costs by GAMC to $2,749.28.

Discussion

Pending Motions

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Adventist’s Costs

On March 10, 2020 Adventist filed a memorandum of costs. On March 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to tax those costs under the “unity of interests doctrine”—i.e., where there is a unity of interests between the prevailing defendant (at that time Adventist) and a defendant who lost at trial (at that time GAMC), the prevailing defendant is not entitled to costs as a matter of law. On May 4, 2020, Adventist filed an opposition, arguing that Plaintiff’s argument is moot given the court’s ruling on GAMC’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict—i.e., because GAMC is now also a “prevailing defendant,” the unity of interests doctrine does not apply. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax GAMC’s Costs

On April 20, 2020 GAMC filed a memorandum of costs.

On May 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to tax GAMC’s costs as excessive and unsupported. On June 26, 2020, GAMC filed an opposition. On July 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply.

ANALYSIS

A. Standard

In general, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs for suit in any action or proceeding.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §1032(b); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606; Scott Co. Of Calif. v. Blount, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1103, 1108.)  The term prevailing party is defined by statute to include: The party with a net monetary recovery; a defendant who is dismissed from the action; a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant recovers anything; and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.  (Cal. Civ. Prov. Code § 1032(a)(4).) 

Allowable costs under section 1033.5 must be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation, and must be reasonable in amount. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §1033.5).  An item not specifically allowable under § 1033.5(a) nor prohibited under subdivision (b) may nevertheless be recoverable in the discretion of the court if they meet the above requirements (i.e., reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount). (Ladas v. California State Automotive Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-774.)   

“Messenger fees are not expressly authorized by statute, but may be allowed in the discretion of the court.” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 111, 132.) 

As for: Models, blowups, photocopies, and exhibits”: Whether an exhibit is used at trial is not dispositive; the proper standard is whether the exhibits “were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact.” (County of Riverside v. City of Murrieta  (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 616, 629.) 

B. Motion to Tax Adventist’s Costs

The doctrine of the unity of interests, which prohibits a prevailing defendant in certain circumstances from recovering costs is as follows:

In those instances in which several defendants are united in interest or join in making the same defenses in the same answer, the prevailing defendant definition in [CCP §] 1032(a)(4) does not apply and the defendant against whom the plaintiff does not recover is not entitled to costs as a matter of right. Instead the allowance or disallowance of costs to the prevailing defendant lies within the sound discretion of the court, as does the apportionment of those costs, if allowed.

(Wakefield v. Bohlin (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 963, 984, disapproved on other grounds in Goodman v. Lozano (2010) 47 Cal. 4th 1327.)

Plaintiff argues that the unity of interest doctrine prohibits Adventist from recovering costs since GAMC, a several defendant who shared a unity of interest with Adventist, lost at trial. As Adventists argues, however, Plaintiff’s main argument is now moot given that the court granted GAMC’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict—i.e., GAMC is now also a prevailing defendant. The court, therefore, denies the motion on this ground.

Plaintiff further argues that:

· Filing and motion fees: Adventist should not be allowed to recover filing fees for a motion for summary judgment ($513.75) and a motion to bifurcate ($60) because Adventist lost those motions. Plaintiff, however, does not offer any authority for the court that a prevailing party is not entitled to recover filing fees as costs if they lose a motion. The test for costs is “necessary for the conduct of the litigation.” The court finds that attempting to narrow (or end) the action by a motion for summary judgment and attempting to reframe the scope of trial are strategic decisions that a defendant would reasonably use for the conduct of litigation. The court, therefore, will not tax these costs.

· Deposition and Electronic Filing/Service Costs: Adventist has not provided proper documentation to justify these costs. In Adventist’s reply, however, Adventist has provided support for these costs. The court, therefore, will not tax these costs.

The court denies the motion. However, the court will reduce Adventist’s costs requests for deposition costs to $2,749.28.

C. Motion to Tax GAMC’s Costs

The court first addresses procedural issues. GAMC requests that the court not consider Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs because Plaintiff did not serve the motion to tax costs within 15 days after GAMC served the memorandum of costs. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs was timely because the court was closed from April 17, 2020 through June 10, 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. If the court is closed, the Plaintiff argues, it is deemed a holiday for purposes of computing applicable time limits. (See Bennett v. Suncloud (1997) 56 Cal. App. 4th 91, 98.) The court understands the confusion and disruption that Covid-19 has caused. The court, therefore, will consider the motion on the merits.

On the substantive merits, Plaintiff seeks to tax the following costs:

· Filing and Motion Fees ($3,715.65): Plaintiff argues that GAMC’s costs are excessive because GAMC used an outside company to file documents, which is more expensive, than GAMC directly filing the motions themselves. The court rejects this argument. The court has discretion to award messenger fees as costs. (Nelson v. Anderson 72 Cal. App. 4th at 132.) 

· Deposition costs ($5,498.55): Plaintiff, among other things, argues that these costs are duplicative of Adventist’s costs claim for deposition costs. The court agrees and will reduce the recoverable deposition costs between Adventist and GAMC—i.e., to $2,749.28. The court finds Plaintiff’s other arguments unavailing. GAMC’s costs in taking two depositions and ordering the transcripts for the four depositions that Plaintiff took is necessary for the conduct of litigation.

· Models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits ($5,815.15): Plaintiff argues that these costs are unsupported and excessive. GAMC in its opposition provides an invoice to substantiate these costs—mostly trial presentation equipment, trial exhibits, and graphics. The court finds that the expenses are reasonable and necessary for the conduct of litigation.

· Jury Fees ($1,187.45): Plaintiff argues that these costs are unsupported and excessive. In GAMC’s opposition, GAMC offers testimony of an employee of GAMC’s counsel, who testified under oath the jury fees that Defendants paid for this case. The court finds that such evidence is sufficient.

The court, therefore, denies the motion, except to reduce the amount of recoverable deposition costs to $2,749.28.

Unless waived, notice of ruling by Defendants.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/WEST is a litigant

Latest cases where ADVENTIST HEALTH WHITE MEMORIAL is a litigant

Latest cases where GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DOYLE CONAL