Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/20/2019 at 02:06:08 (UTC).

TERRY TOM ET AL VS INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/20/2017 TERRY TOM filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS and LISA HART COLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5696

  • Filing Date:

    06/20/2017

  • 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

MARC D. GROSS

LISA HART COLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

TOM TERRY

TOM GAYLINE

TOM NICHOLAS (DECEASED)_

TOM NICHOLAS DECEASED_

Defendants and Respondents

LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE INC.

LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT INC.

DOES 1 - 100

INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS LLC

LIVE NATION WORLD WIDE INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

FONG B. MARK

MINAMI TAKAMKI LLP

BHATT SEEMA JITENDRA

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BREMER KEITH G. ESQ.

ALDEN ERIC B.

BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA

SALEM JOHNPAUL NAJAH

KOTIK FRANCHESCA S.

JOHNPAUL SALEM

 

Court Documents

Unknown

1/16/2018: Unknown

Unknown

1/31/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/27/2018: Unknown

Unknown

4/3/2018: Unknown

Case Management Statement

4/17/2018: Case Management Statement

Unknown

4/19/2018: Unknown

Unknown

4/19/2018: Unknown

Reply

4/25/2018: Reply

Request for Judicial Notice

9/7/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Motion to Compel

9/7/2018: Motion to Compel

Unknown

9/7/2018: Unknown

Response

11/26/2018: Response

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

12/3/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order

1/3/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANTS INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS, LLC; LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE, INC.'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

12/26/2017: DEFENDANTS INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS, LLC; LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE, INC.'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

DEFENDANTS INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS, LLC; LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC AND LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE, INC.'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

10/20/2017: DEFENDANTS INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS, LLC; LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC AND LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE, INC.'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

73 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/18/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS, LLC (Defendant); Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. (Defendant); LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Additional pages for Summary Judgment Motion) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Defendant Insomniac Holdings, LLC's Ex Parte Appli...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (for additional pages to Summary Judgment); Filed by INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS, LLC (Defendant); LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (Defendant); LIVE NATION WORLD WIDE, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue the Trial Date and Related Dates) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Joint Ex Parte Application to Continue the Trial D...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Stipulation - No Order (Joint Supplemental Stipulation To Continue The Trial And Related Dates); Filed by TERRY TOM (Plaintiff); GAYLINE TOM (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue the Trial Date and Related Dates) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
136 More Docket Entries
  • 09/12/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2017
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE, ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by TERRY TOM (Plaintiff); NICHOLAS (DECEASED)_ TOM (Plaintiff); GAYLINE TOM (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC665696    Hearing Date: August 13, 2020    Dept: O

The Court continued the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion to tax costs to further consider counsel's arguments and cited authority supporting her mistaken belief regarding the deadline to file a motion to tax costs.  After further consideration, the Court adopts its tentative ruling of July 16, 2020 (incorporated herein) denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion to tax costs with the following additional reasoning.
The authorities cited by Counsel regarding the claimed ambiguity of when a memorandum of costs must be filed after a request for dismissal is filed do not explain why Counsel’s failure to timely file a motion to tax those costs was an excusable mistake.  Even if counsel believed the filling of the memorandum of costs was premature because a judgment of dismissal had not been entered, it was not excusable for counsel to simply ignore the clear deadline to file the motion to tax costs stated in CRC Rule 3.1700(b)(1).  Moreover, counsel’s reliance on that mistaken belief is belied by counsel’s testimony about her conversation with opposing counsel shortly after the memorandum of costs was filed. Oddly, in that conversation counsel did not claim the memorandum of costs was filed prematurely or that costs cannot be awarded until a judgement of dismissal is entered. Instead, counsel just argued the merits of the costs with opposing counsel. Similarly, the Court rejects counsel’s argument that the absence of prejudice warrants granting her leave to file the motion to tax costs.  The Court has considered that important factor, but given the clear absence of any excusable neglect the Court finds relief is not justified under CCP 473, subdivision (b). “The issue of which mistake of law constitutes excusable neglect presents a question of fact. The determining factors are the reasonableness of the misconception and the justifiability of lack of determination of the correct law.” Toho-Towa Co., Ltd. v. Morgan Creek Productions, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1111; Hopkins & Carley v Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App..4th 1401, 1413. (Counsel failed to show justification for the failure to determine the correct law); New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420, (“Under the discretionary provision in section 473, subdivision (b), in contrast, the absence of substantial prejudice is an important factor to consider rather than a requirement.”)  Generale Bank Nederland v. Eyes of the Beholder Ltd. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1402 (“Because we conclude that no abuse of discretion has been shown with respect to the issue of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, we need not address other issues raised by appellants, including the issues of prejudice and estoppel to assert relief under section 473.”)

Case Number: BC665696    Hearing Date: July 16, 2020    Dept: O

Case Name: Tom, et al. v. Insomniac Holdings, LLC, et al. 
Case No.: BC665696
Hearing: 7-16-20
Calendar #: 6
Notice: OK 
Complaint Filed:      6/20/17
Motion C/O: 8-10-20
Discovery C/O: 7-24-20
Trial Date: 8-24-20 
______________________________________________________________________________
SUBJECT: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO TAX COSTS
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Terry Tom and Gayline Tom 
RESP. PARTY: Defendants Insomniac Holdings, LLC, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED.
Pursuant to CCP §473(b), a party may seek relief from a judgment, dismissal, order or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.  “The standard is whether a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances' might have made the same error.”  Solv-All v. Supr. Ct. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1007-1008.  
Any motion to strike or tax prejudgment costs must be served and filed within 15 days after service of the memo of costs. See CRC Rule 3.1700(b)(1). Delay in challenging (or failure to challenge) a costs bill waives any objection to the costs claimed thereon.  See Douglas v. Willis (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 287, 290.  Even so, the court has discretion to grant CCP § 473(b) relief for “inadvertence” or “excusable neglect” to consider late-filed motions.  Id. at 290 (trial judge properly denied §473 relief where attorney's excuse for failing to file motion to tax costs “lacked credibility”).  The court has discretion to grant relief from a party’s failure to timely file a motion to strike or tax a memo of costs.  Id. at 292 (affirming trial court’s denial of 473(b) relief from untimely motion to tax based on counsel’s lack of credibility).  However, mandatory relief from the deadline to tax or strike costs is unavailable.  Id.  Mandatory relief is limited to defaults, default judgments or the equivalent of a default.  Id. at 291-292.
An attorney's mistake of law is charged to the client and is not a ground for relief when the “mistake” is “simply the result of professional incompetence, general ignorance of the law, or unjustifiable negligence in discovering the law.”  Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1206 (attorney defendant’s belief she was served with malpractice complaint at hearing and therefore had more time to respond did not qualify for discretionary relief; default was consequence of attorney defendant's failure to take reasonably prudent steps to avoid entry of judgment).  A trial court’s denial of discretionary relief is not an abuse of discretion where the mistake of law is on a “simple and obvious point of law” that “elementary legal research which would have cleared it up.” See Anderson v. Sherman (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 228, (defense counsel’s erroneous belief that client had to be served in a particular manner was inexcusable neglect). "There is nothing in section 473 to suggest it was intended to be a catch-all remedy for every case of poor judgment on the part of counsel which results in dismissal.” State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 611–612.

Defendants Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Live Nation Worldwide filed a memorandum of costs in the amount of $42,023.05 on 9-18-19.  The deadline to file a motion to strike or tax those costs expired on 10-8-19 per CRC Rule 3.1700(b)(1)(15 days plus 5 days for mailing).  According to Plaintiffs’ counsel, she did not file a motion to strike or tax costs by the 10-8-19, because she believed a judgment of dismissal or a notice of entry of dismissal was required before any costs could be awarded.  See Dec. of S. Bhatt, ¶3.  Plaintiffs’ failure to timely file a motion to strike or tax was therefore the result of counsel’s mistake of law.  
Plaintiffs’ counsel’s mistake of law was unreasonable, as the issue was neither complex nor unsettled.  CRC Rule 3.1700(b)(1) clearly and unequivocally sets forth a deadline based on the filing date of the memorandum of costs, not entry of a judgment of dismissal or a notice of entry of dismissal or the Court’s ability to award costs.  Bhatt’s declaration also provides no explanation for how she arrived at the erroneous conclusions that (1) the Court’s ability to award costs to dismissed Defendants was contingent on entry of a judgment of dismissal or Notice of Entry of Dismissal; (2) the deadline under CRC Rule 3.1700(b)(1) could not be triggered until a judgment of dismissal or notice of entry of dismissal was entered; and (3) Plaintiffs’ obligation to file a motion to strike or tax costs within the timeframe under CRC Rule 3.1700(b)(1) was affected by the Court’s ability to award costs.  See Dec. of S. Bhatt, ¶3.  Plaintiffs fail to establish that counsel’s mistake of law was either reasonable or that her failure to determine the correct law was justifiable, e.g. arguably supported by reasonable research attempts.  
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT INC. is a litigant