Case Number: BC523129 Hearing Date: October 17, 2018 Dept: I

Puzo v. Kromolowski, and related Cross-Action

Ahasverus, Inc. v. Puzp, and related Cross-Action

BC523129

The Court has reviewed the parties papers related to the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Motion In Limine of Dorothy Puzo and the two motions of plaintiff to either strike defendants’ Memorandum of Costs or to tax all of the claimed costs. The Court will deny the Motion by the Kromolowskis and Ahasverus, Inc. for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion In limine No. 1 relating to damages. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Defendnats’ Memorandum of Costs because they are not the prevailing parties in this action. The Court will deny Plaidntiff’s related motion to tax costs as moot. Finally, the Court will enter the Court will enter the Amended Judgment After Court Trial submitted by plaintiff on August 7, 2018.

THE MOTION FOR RRECONSIDERATION

The Kromolowski’s and Ahasverus essentially argue that the Court should reconsider its order granting Plaintiff’s In Limine Motion No. 1 precluding them from presenting speculative damage claims based on the assumption that a movie might have been made someday based on their screenplay because, at a minimum, they are entitled to “reliance damages” measured by the reasonable value of their services in carrying out the contract terms prior to the alleged breach by Puzo. The difficulty with this argument is that the defendants’ never made this argument prior to trial, so they have waived any right to a trial on that theory. Here, defendnats never argued that they should be allowed to recover any “reliance damages.’ Accordingly, their effort to do so now does not constitute new evidence or law warranting a retrial. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion For Reconsideration. The Court will also deny Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions. There is no basis for a finding of contempt or a finding that the defendants’ motion was filed to harass the plaintiff (C.C.P. sec. 128.7(b)(1), or that the arguments wee frivolous. [C.C.P. sec. 128.7(b)(2).] Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to establish a basis for sanctions under 128.7(c) or (d).

MOTION TO STRIKE COSTS MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff has moved to strike the costs memorandum field by defendants following the voluntary dismissal of cross-complaints by the plaintiff in both consolidated actions. However, as plaintiff correctly points out in her Motion, the prevailing party is the party that recovers a net judgment. In this case that is the plaintiff, Puzo. Neither the Kromolowskis not Ahasverus, Inc. recovered anything in this matter. Their argument that they are the only prevailing parties at the time the Memorandum of Costs was filed because no judgment had been entered has no merit.