This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/20/2020 at 03:13:26 (UTC).

PETRA JACKSON VS PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/16/2018 PETRA JACKSON filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RAMONA G. SEE and DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2683

  • Filing Date:

    02/16/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Torrance Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RAMONA G. SEE

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Appellants

JACKSON PETRA AN INDIVIDUAL

JACKSON PETRA

MARTORELL LAW APC

Defendants and Respondents

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY

KOBRINSKY NATASHA

KAY MURZI

DOES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

L.A. DEPOSITIONS INC.

CALL & JENSEN

Respondents and Not Classified By Court

L.A. DEPOSITIONS INC.

GOLDMAN JOSIANE B.

APEX LEGAL SERVICES

PEEPLES GAIL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

EDUARDO MARTORELL

MARTORELL LAW APC

APC MARTORELL LAW

MARTORELL EDUARDO LAW

Attorney at Martorell Law APC

6100 Center Dr Suite 1130

Los Angeles, CA 90045

Defendant Attorneys

CALL & JENSEN

SUGDEN DAVID RICHARD

Attorney at Call & Jensen

610 Newport Center Dr. Suite 700

Newport Beach, CA 92660

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TAXING DEFENDANTS' COSTS

6/23/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TAXING DEFENDANTS' COSTS

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/11/2020

3/11/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/11/2020

Notice - NOTICE CONTINUANCE OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER TAXING DEFENDANT'S COSTS

9/20/2019: Notice - NOTICE CONTINUANCE OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER TAXING DEFENDANT'S COSTS

Objection - OBJECTION RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JOANN VICTOR

4/23/2019: Objection - OBJECTION RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JOANN VICTOR

Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal

3/15/2019: Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal

Declaration - Declaration Of Melinda Evans In Support Of Defendants Pepperdine University And Murzi Kay's Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Deposition Of Murzi Kay

11/19/2018: Declaration - Declaration Of Melinda Evans In Support Of Defendants Pepperdine University And Murzi Kay's Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Deposition Of Murzi Kay

Opposition - Pepperdine University and Murzi Kay's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition of Murzi Kay

11/19/2018: Opposition - Pepperdine University and Murzi Kay's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition of Murzi Kay

Objection - Objection To Declaration Of Nancy Jimenez In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Deposition Of Murzi Kay

11/19/2018: Objection - Objection To Declaration Of Nancy Jimenez In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Deposition Of Murzi Kay

Other - - Other - Deft'ts objections to the declaration of Nancy Jimenez filed in support of Opposition to Defts' Motion for Protective orde

11/27/2018: Other - - Other - Deft'ts objections to the declaration of Nancy Jimenez filed in support of Opposition to Defts' Motion for Protective orde

Opposition - Opposition to Defendants' Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint

11/28/2018: Opposition - Opposition to Defendants' Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint

Case Management Statement -

10/5/2018: Case Management Statement -

Reply - Reply In Support Of Defendants' Demurrer To Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

12/4/2018: Reply - Reply In Support Of Defendants' Demurrer To Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: First Amended Complaint

6/18/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: First Amended Complaint

Notice - OF RELATED CASE

8/21/2018: Notice - OF RELATED CASE

Amended Complaint -

8/21/2018: Amended Complaint -

Request for Judicial Notice -

8/16/2018: Request for Judicial Notice -

Amended Complaint -

8/16/2018: Amended Complaint -

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - IN SUPPORT THEREOF

7/17/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - IN SUPPORT THEREOF

106 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Petra Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Petra Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2020
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs on Appeal; Filed by Murzi Kay (Respondent); Natasha Kobrinsky (Respondent); Pepperdine University (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Remittitur - Affirmed (B296411); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
155 More Docket Entries
  • 04/16/2018
  • DocketStipulation; Filed by Petra Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketStipulation; Filed by Petra Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Petra Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • DocketOSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Petra Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Petra Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Petra Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Ruling on Submitted Matter - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-01-31 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC072683    Hearing Date: November 18, 2020    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2020

Department B Calendar No. 18

PROCEEDINGS

Petra Jackson v. Pepperdine University, et al.

YC072683

1. Petra Jackson’s Motion to Tax Costs

TENTATIVE RULING

Petra Jackson’s Motion to Tax Costs is granted.

“Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. If the cost memorandum was served electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4).” Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(1).

“Unless objection is made to the entire cost memorandum, the motion to strike or tax costs 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).

“If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 (internal citation omitted).

Defendants Pepperdine University and Murzi Kai’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was sustained without leave to amend on December 11, 2018. Recently, the Court’s decision was affirmed on appeal. Thus, Defendants are the prevailing party.

Item 4: Deposition Costs

The “[t]aking, video recording, and transcribing necessary depositions, including an original and one copy of those taken by the claimant and one copy of depositions taken by the party against whom costs are allowed” is an allowable cost. Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(3)(A).

Plaintiffs move to strike the amount of $2,456.00 for the deposition costs of Plaintiff. Plaintiff argued that the deposition was not necessary to the litigation. As a threshold matter, the Court does find that the deposition was necessary to the litigation. However, binding legal authority persuades the Court to grant the motion.

Pursuant to Gov. Code § 12965(b), a prevailing FEHA plaintiff is ordinarily entitled to his or her costs and attorneys’ fees. However, a trial court may not order an unsuccessful FEHA plaintiff to pay the defendant's attorney’s fees or costs unless the plaintiff brought or continued litigating the action frivolously, without foundation, in bad faith, or without an objective basis for believing it had potential merit. See, Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 97.

Here, the Court cannot make a finding that Plaintiff brought or continued litigating the action frivolously, without foundation, in bad faith, or without an objective basis for believing it had potential merit. Plaintiff specifically alleged that she was subjected to, at least, two crude and inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature, which she believed were severe enough to constitute viable causes of action under FEHA. The fact that, ultimately, the current legal authorities supported a finding that those remarks were not sufficiently severe did not render her claims so lacking in merit to be considered as frivolous. Thus, pursuant to Gov. Code section 12965(b), the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs as to Item 4, Deposition Costs.

Defendant’s arguments in opposition are not availing. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff only brought to the Court’s attention Williams in a supplemental brief that was filed outside of the time frame of CRC 3.1700(b)(1). The fact that this case was mentioned in a supplemental brief does not change the fact that this case, as well as Gov. Code section 12965, and all the numerous cases interpreting this statute were good and binding law at the time that the motion was filed. All that was required was that Plaintiff file a notice of motion in a timely fashion. Plaintiff is not required to specifically present all legal authorities that would support her motion. The Court does note, however, that as to Defendant’s argument, under Williams, Plaintiff may have been entitled to move to tax the entire cost memo. However, because Plaintiff’s notice of motion did not comply with CRC 3.1700(b)(2), the Court only strikes the deposition costs because Plaintiff only moved to tax these specific costs. To the extent that Plaintiff’s supplemental brief and reply appears to suggest that the Court must strike the entire cost memorandum, the Court denies such a request as not timely and properly noticed.

Defendant also argues that the Court should not strike the deposition costs because, at the time of the deposition, Plaintiff had asserted both FEHA and non-FEHA claims. First, the Court notes that the dispositive ruling sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend only referred to FEHA claims because only FEHA claims remained in the Second Amended Complaint. Second, to the extent that non-FEHA claims were still being alleged at the time of the deposition, it is clear that the allegations of the FEHA claims were essential to the allegations of the non-FEHA claims and were inextricably intertwined with those claims. The Court is not able to conduct an exercise in determining what portions of the deposition were or were not specifically related to the non-FEHA claims.

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs in the amount of $2,456.00 for the deposition costs of Defendants is granted.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.