Case Number: BC375937 Hearing Date: June 09, 2014 Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

FIROUZEH GHAFFARPOUR, et al.,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

COMMERCE PLAZA HOTEL, et al.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC375937

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TAX COSTS IN PART AND DENYING MOTION TO TAX COSTS IN PART

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #31
June 9, 2014

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Tax Costs is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. The motion to tax item 1 is denied. The motion to tax item 8 is granted in its entirety; $465 is stricken from the costs bill. The motion to tax item 13 is granted in part; item 13 is reduced from $8350 to $6100.

1. Background Facts
Plaintiffs, Firouzeh Ghaffarpour, Dokhi Mohammad Reese, Nasrin Mohammadi, and Nabiollah Najafi Moallem filed this action against Defendants, Commerce Plaza Hotel and SW Private Patrol for negligence, IIED, civil battery, false imprisonment, civil assault, negligent failure to protect against assault and battery, and negligent failure to render aid.

Plaintiffs essentially allege that, on 6/17/06, they went to the Commerce Plaza Hotel, which had been rented for the purpose of holding polling and elections for the Islamic Republic of Iran, for the purpose of protesting. They were forced to move from the inside of the hotel to the outside of the hotel, and thereafter were assaulted and battered by security guards employed by Defendant, SW Private Patrol.

2. Summary Judgment Motion
On 12/24/13, the Court heard and granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

3. Memoranda of Costs
On 1/31/14, Defendant filed a memorandum of costs. On 2/21/14, Plaintiffs filed a motion to tax costs. On 2/27/14, Defendant filed an amended memorandum of costs. On 3/14/14, Plaintiffs filed a motion to tax costs directed at the 2/27/14 memorandum. Only the 2/27/14 memorandum is at issue at this time.

4. Motion to Tax Costs
a. Initial Note
Defendant timely filed and served its opposition to the motion on 5/27/14. Any reply to the opposition was due on or before 6/02/14. Plaintiffs filed their reply on 6/03/14, one day late. No courtesy copy was delivered to the department, in violation of ¶7 of the 2nd Amended General Order Re: PI Court Procedures (Updated 4-4-14). The Court has not considered the late-filed reply papers.

b. Premature
Plaintiffs’ first argument is that Defendant filed its memorandum of costs prematurely. Plaintiffs note that Defendant’s MSJ was granted on 12/24/13, but no actual judgment has been entered as of the time the memorandum of costs was filed (judgment was later entered on 4/15/14).

Defendant correctly notes in opposition that premature filing of a memorandum of costs does not divest the court of jurisdiction over the matter, and a court can treat a prematurely-filed memorandum of costs as a timely-filed memorandum of costs. See Haley v. Cases del Rey Homeowners As’n (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 863, 880.

c. Filing and Motion Fees
Plaintiffs challenge filing fees for a bond motion, a stipulation, and an ex parte application. Plaintiffs fail entirely to state why these charges are not proper in their moving papers. Per CCP §1033.5(a)(1), filing fees are permissible so long as they are reasonably necessary to the litigation. Plaintiffs do not even contend Defendant lost the motion or ex parte application, and certainly don’t make a showing that the stipulation was not necessary. The motion to tax these costs is denied.

d. Ordinary Witness Fees
Plaintiffs challenge Defendant’s claimed ordinary witness fees in the amount of $465. Defendant does not oppose the motion to tax these costs, and it is granted. The Court strikes ¶8 of the memorandum of costs.

e. Expert Witness Fees
Plaintiffs seek to tax Defendant’s expert witness fees, which are claimed in the total amount of $8350. Plaintiffs seek to tax the fees for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs contend the experts did not testify in connection with the MSJ, and therefore their retention was not reasonably necessary to the success of the litigation. Second, Plaintiffs contend the fees are excessive.

Plaintiffs’ first argument is rejected. Defendant was obligated to prepare the case for trial, in the event that it lost on the summary judgment motion. Defendant was entitled to have Plaintiffs’ claimed medical damages reviewed by an expert in order to properly prepare for the event of trial.

With respect to the amount of fees, Defendant provides the actual invoices as well as the checks issued to the experts. Defendant does, however, concede that the amount for Dr. Feuerman was mis-stated as $4650, and should have been $2400. The Court finds the amounts actually paid were reasonable, and therefore reduces item 13 (Other – expert fees) by $2250 (from $8350 to $6100).

Dated this 9th day of June, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court