This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/22/2019 at 00:51:23 (UTC).

SHIN P YANG ET AL VS WANG CHIEN EGO HSIAO ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/24/2017 SHIN P YANG filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against WANG CHIEN EGO HSIAO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are WILLIAM D. STEWART and MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8006

  • Filing Date:

    01/24/2017

  • 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 Judges

WILLIAM D. STEWART

MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Defendants and Petitioners

LAW OFFICES OF SHIN P. YANG

YANG SHIN P

Defendants, Respondents and Petitioners

SYIAU LONG TZONG

LAW OFFICES OF SHIN P. YANG

HSIAO WANG CHIEN EGO

DOES 1-50

HANG WILLIAM

HSIAO EVELYN DOE 1

HSIAO LIVING TRUST DOE 2

Defendants and Respondents

SYIAU LONG TZONG

HSIAO WANG CHIEN EGO

DOES 1-50

HANG WILLIAM

Cross Defendant

YANG SHIN P.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF SHIN P. YAN

CARLEO FRANK S.

PIERRY JOSEPH PATRICK

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

TU EDWARD C. ESQ.

TU EDWARD CHIH-HSIN ESQ.

TU EDWARD CHIH-HSIN

Cross Defendant Attorney

CARLEO FRANK S. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

3/13/2017: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Answer

3/27/2017: Answer

Unknown

5/23/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

6/15/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/5/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

7/10/2017: Unknown

Case Management Statement

7/17/2017: Case Management Statement

Unknown

7/26/2017: Unknown

Unknown

8/17/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/2/2017: Unknown

Declaration

10/6/2017: Declaration

Unknown

2/1/2018: Unknown

Trial Brief

4/16/2018: Trial Brief

Minute Order

4/10/2019: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

4/17/2019: Ex Parte Application

Notice of Ruling

6/19/2019: Notice of Ruling

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF CROSS-DEFENDANT SHIN P. YANG TO STRIKE CROSS-COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CCP ?425.16); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, DECLARATIONS OF SHIN P. YANG AND FRANK CARLEO IN S

5/23/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF CROSS-DEFENDANT SHIN P. YANG TO STRIKE CROSS-COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CCP ?425.16); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, DECLARATIONS OF SHIN P. YANG AND FRANK CARLEO IN S

(1) PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 425.16; ETC

6/8/2017: (1) PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 425.16; ETC

129 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/19/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Shin P Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Ex-Parte Proceedings

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Ex Parte Application For an Order to Take the June 28, 2019 H...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Re: Financial Status of Defendant Hsiao); Filed by Shin P Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Shin P Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (For an Order to Take the June 28, 2019 Hearing Date Off Calendar); Filed by Shin P Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Declaration (of Joseph P. Pierry, Esq. in Support of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application); Filed by Shin P Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Order (Granting Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application); Filed by Shin P Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • at 10:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing - Other (on the issue of Punitive Damages) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (re Court's Ruling on Submitted Matter) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
193 More Docket Entries
  • 03/07/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2017
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Shin P Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AND BUSINESS; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Shin P Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Shin P Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2017
  • Summons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC648006    Hearing Date: November 08, 2019    Dept: A

Yang v Hsaio

Motion to Tax Costs

Calendar:

09

Case No.:

BC648006

Hearing Date:

November 08, 2019

Action Filed:

January 24, 2017

Judgment:

September 03, 2019

MP:

Defendants Wang Chien Hsiao; Long Tzong Syiau

RP:

N/A

ALLEGATIONS:

The present action arises from Plaintiffs Shin P. Yang; Shin P. Yang d/b/a Law Offices of Shin P. Yang (“Plaintiffs”) 2015 legal representation of William Hang (“Hang”) in a wage and hour dispute with Defendants Wang Chien Ego Hsiao (“Hsiao”) and Long Tzong Syiau (“Syiau”) (and together with the Hsiao Living Trust the “Defendants”).

Plaintiffs allege that during the pendency of the underlying litigation, Defendants surreptitiously induced Hang to enter into a $20,000 cash settlement despite knowing that Hang was represented by Plaintiffs. Based on Defendants’ conduct during the underlying litigation, Plaintiffs filed the instant litigation alleging four causes of action for (1) Intentional Interference with Contract and Business; (2) Civil Conspiracy; (3) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; and (4) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Relations.

PRESENTATION:

Following a four-day bench trial ending on December 03, 2018, on April 10, 2019, the Court awarded judgment in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendants in the amount of $102,022.00 plus $1,926.00 in costs, together with punitive damages. Punitive damages of $100,000.00 were awarded on August 08, 2019, and an appeal was filed on October 31, 2019.

The instant motion to tax costs was filed on October 07, 2019, and has not been opposed.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Hsiao and Syiau move to tax the following costs:

  1. Service of Process fees reduced from $1,139.53 to $0;

  2. Witness Fees of $4,205.00 to $0;

  3. Models/Enlargements/Photocopies from $205.20 to $160.00; and

  4. Electronic Service Fees from $379.45 to $0.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – The costs incurred by the parties to a civil action consist of the expenses of litigation, usually excluding attorney fees. Patricia Bakey – Hoey v. Lockheed (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 592, 597. Under the common law rule, parties to litigation must bear their own costs. Id.; see also Davis v. KGO-TV, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 436, 446 (Although the purpose of much civil litigation is to make the injured party “whole,” the traditional common law rule is that the parties must bear their own costs.). The right to recover any costs is, thus, determined entirely by statute. Patricia Bakey – Hoey, supra, 111 Cal. App. 4th at 597. In the absence of an authorizing statute, no costs can be recovered by either party. Id. Code of Civ. Proc. §1032(a) provides that an award of costs to the prevailing party is mandatory, and Code of Civ. Proc. §1033.5 provides authorization for an award of costs on certain, specified, items.

“[T]he verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary.” 612 South LLC v. Laconic Ltd. Partnership (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1270, 1285. Evidence is generally required in order to support an objection, and the mere submission of conclusions or bare allegations typically does not justify taxing costs. See County of Kern v. Ginn (1983) 146 Cal. App. 3d 1107 (113-14) (bare allegation that depositions were neither necessary nor reasonable insufficient to overcome right to costs). Allegations are sufficient, however, if they depend upon undisputed facts where nothing more needed to be, or could have been, added by additional declarations or affidavits. Fennessy v. Deleuw-Cather Corp. (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 1192, 1196.

Item 5 (Service of Process Fees) – Moving Defendants argue that the $1,139.53 should be stricken on the ground that the subpoenas to banks included in the costs were not necessary to the litigation of the instant action. Specifically, Moving Defendants argue that bank accounts were not relevant to the liability phase of the trial, and that the parties stipulated to Moving Defendants’ net worth for the punitive damages phase of the trial.

The Court agrees, and without opposition the Court will grant the motion as to this item.

Item 8 (Witness Fees) – Moving Defendants argue that the $4,205.00 in expert witness fees should be stricken, as there is no statutory basis for awarding those fees as the Court never ordered experts, no expert witness testified at trial, and the expert witness listed includes a corporation, not an individual.

The Court agrees, and without opposition the Court will grant the motion as to this item.

Item 12 (Models, Enlargements, Photocopies) – Moving Defendants argue that the $205.20 represents, at most, 1,600 pages of photocopies, and that the reasonable rate for photocopies should be assessed as $0.10 per page, making the correct cost $160.00.

Without opposition the Court will grant the motion as to this item.

Item 14 (Electronic Filing) – Moving Defendants argue that the Court should strike all of $379.45 for the electronic filing fees associated with the action. While the fees were not directly ordered by this department, the Court considers that all civil court filings from January 01, 2019, through the present are under an order by the court requiring electronic filing. As such, the Court considers such costs awardable under Code of Civ. Proc. §1033.5(a)(14). While Moving Defendants have provided information that the regular electronic filing fees range between $3.50 to $7.00 per filing, they have not provided sufficient information to rebut the propriety of the amounts requested by demonstrating what the reasonable costs should have been. The Court’s review of the record, indicates that there have been 28 filings by Plaintiff since January 01, 2019. As such, the Court will set the fees awarded for electronic service to $7 per filing, resulting in a fee of $196.00.

Accordingly, the Court will grant in part and deny in part as to this item, and set the awardable costs for Item 14 at $196.00.

---

RULING: THE MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, WITH:

ITEMS 5 AND 8 STRICKEN FROM THE MEMORANDUM OF COSTS;

ITEM 12 TAXED FROM $205.20 TO $160.00; AND

ITEM 14 TAXED FROM $379.45 TO $196.00.

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendants Wang Chien Hsiao; Long Txong Syiau’s Motion to Tax Costs came on regularly for hearing on November 08, 2019, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, WITH:

ITEMS 5 AND 8 STRICKEN FROM THE MEMORANDUM OF COSTS;

ITEM 12 TAXED FROM $205.20 TO $160.00; AND

ITEM 14 TAXED FROM $379.45 TO $196.00.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE