Motion StrikeCal. Super. - 6th Dist.August 24, 2017\OOOflmUl-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tp-tr-tr-tp-Ar-kp-tr-tr-t WNONM¥WNHO©OOQON£A¥WNHO BD&J, PC A Professional Law Corporation MARK E. MILLARD, ESQ. [SBN 175169] mem@bhatt0rnevs.com BITA M. AZIMI, ESQ. [SBN 140519] bma@bhatt0mev.com 9701 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Beverly Hills, California 90212 Telephone: (3 10) 887-18 1 8 Facsimile: (424) 522- 1 3 51 Attorneys for PLAINTIFF, JOSE ANGEL PALOMERA-BRAVO Electronically filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 3/19/2021 4:52 PM Reviewed By:M Vu Case #1 7CV31 5032 Env #6075499 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JOSE ANGEL PALOMERA-BRAVO, an individual, Plaintiff(s), VS. JEREMY R. BONINO, an individual; LOUIS BONINO, an individual; BRENT BONINO, an individual; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Defendant(s), vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv 1 Case No.: 17CV3 1 5032 [Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Sunil Kulkarni, Dept. 8] PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ COST BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [Filed concurrently with Declaration ofBita M. Azimi in support ofPlaintifl’iv Motion t0 Tax Costs; Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities; And, (Proposed) Order] Hearing Date: TBD- 6-24-21 Time: IBD- 9:00 Deptgfi/ 7 Action Filed: August 24, 2017 Trial Date: None Set PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ COST BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES \OOONQU‘I-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tp-tr-tr-tp-Ar-kp-tr-tr-t WNONUI¥LNNHO©OOQONL11¥UJNHO TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 24, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereaftel as this matter may be heard in Department; 0f the above referenced Court, located 191 North Firs1 Street, San Jose, California 951 13, Plaintiff Jose Angel Palomera Bravo (“Plaintiff”) will move this Court for an order striking and/or taxing certain costs contained in Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs (“MOC”). This motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, 1033.5 and California Rule of Court 3.1700 on the grounds that the Offer 0n Which the requested costs are not permitted by statute, excessive, not reasonably necessary t0 the conduct of the litigation. not reasonable in amount, and/or do not relate t0 litigation, unrelated to the issues forming thq basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement brought by Louis Bonino, and would have been incurred in furtherance of the defense 0f the remaining key defendants, JEREMY BONINO AND BRENT BONINO This motion is based 0n this notice 0f motion, the accompanying memorandum 0f points and authorities, the pleadings, records and files in this action, such matter 0fwhich the Court may take judicial notice, and such further evidence and argument as may be presented by Plaintiff at 01 before the hearing on this motion. Dated: March 19, 2021 BD&J, PC By: Zfi%jnb MARK E. MILLARD BITA M. AZIMI Attorneys for PLAINTIFF, JOSE ANGEL PALOMERA-BRAVO 2 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ COST BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES \OOONGUI-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-th-Ar-tr-tr-Ar-Ab-Ar-tr-t WQQUIJ>WNHO©OOQONUI¥WNHO MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT On August 31, 2015, Plaintiff sustained severe injuries resulting from a double collision vehicular accident When 16 -year-01d defendant, Jeremy R. Bonino, driving a 1997 Chevy Tahoe southbound 0n Monterey Road, ran a red light and Violently slammed into the driver’s side door of Mr. Palomera’s vehicle. The force 0f the pushed Mr. Palomera’s vehicle (First Impact) across the intersection and into a power pole (Second Impact) located on the southeast corner ofMonterey Road Where his vehicle finally came t0 rest. (Azimi Decl. 113) PlaintiffPALOMERA is rendered With catastrophic shoulder, arm, wrist, and Spinal injuries for Which he received years of medical and surgical care and treatment by a long list 0f health care providers whose depositions were noticed and undertaken by defendants t0 assess the indication and the scope of the care they rendered to PALOMERA. These depositions were strictly about damages and entirely unrelated t0 the issue 0fDefendant Louis Bonino’ s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement. Furthermore, these depositions would have been necessary in furtherance of the defense 0f the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino. (Azimi Declfl4). Following specification clearly demonstrates Plaintiff” s position in support 0f the within motion: Robert Kovacs, D.C. was Plaintiff’s treating provider whose deposition was undertaken by Defendants on August 2, 2019. The total cost for this deposition is listed as $1,022.58. (Defendant’s Memorandum 0fCost-Attachment 4) This deposition was strictly about damages and entirely unrelated t0 the issue 0f Defendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement. Furthermore, these depositions would have been necessary in furtherance of the defense 0f the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino. (Azimi Decl. 115). Vanessa Gabrovsky Cuellar, M.D. was Plaintiff’s treating provider whose deposition was undertaken by Defendants 0n September 3, 2019. The total cost for this deposition is listed as 3 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ COST BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES \OOONGUI-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-th-Ar-tr-tr-Ar-Ab-Ar-tr-t WQQUIJ>WNHO©OOQONUI¥WNHO $2,576.67. (Defendant’s Memorandum 0f Cost-Attachment 4) This deposition was strictly aboui damages and entirely unrelated t0 the issue 0fDefendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement. Furthermore, these depositions would have been necessary in furtherance of the defense 0f the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino. (Azimi Decl. 116). Dale Helman, M.D. was Plaintiff’s treating provider whose deposition was undertaken by Defendants on September 9, 2019. The total cost for this deposition is listed a $1,511.11. (Defendant’s Memorandum 0fCost-Attachment 4) This deposition was strictly about damages and entirely unrelated t0 the issue 0f Defendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement. Furthermore, these depositions would have been necessary in furtherance 0f the defense 0f the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino. (Azimi Decl. 117). Parish Vaidya, M.D. was Plaintiff’s treating provider whose deposition was undertaken by Defendants 0n 0 September 9, 2019. The total cost for this deposition is listed a $2,159.58. (Defendant’s Memorandum 0fCost-Attachment 4) This deposition was strictly about damages and entirely unrelated t0 the issue 0f Defendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement. Furthermore, these depositions would have been necessary in furtherance 0f the defense of the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino. (Azimi Decl. 118). Benjamin Busfield, M.D. was Plaintiff” s treating provider whose deposition was undertaken by Defendants on August 2, 2019. The total cost for this deposition is listed a $1,143.55. (Defendant’s Memorandum 0fCost-Attachment 4) This deposition was strictly about damages and entirely unrelated t0 the issue 0f Defendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement. Furthermore, these depositions would have been necessary in furtherance 0f the defense 0f the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino. (Azimi Decl. 119). 4 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ COST BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES \OOONGUI-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-th-Ar-tr-tr-Ar-Ab-Ar-tr-t WQQUIJ>WNHO©OOQONUI¥WNHO Sam Bakhshian, M.D. was plaintiff counsel’s consultant having never seen 0r treated the Plaintiff. In View of the fact that this consultant opinions are subject to privileged attorney work product, the $295 cancellation fee is exclusively cost should not be charged t0 the Plaintiff. (Defendant’s Memorandum 0f Cost-Attachment 4) Furthermore, the opinions of this consultant, even if permitted, would have been strictly about damages and entirely unrelated t0 the issue of Defendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement. Furthermore, these depositions would have been necessary in furtherance of the defense of the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino. (Azimi Decl. 1110). Khodam Rad Payman, M.D. was Plaintiff’s treating provider whose deposition was undertaken by Defendants 0n February 5, 2020. The total cost for this deposition is listed as $5,969.55. (Defendant’s Memorandum of Cost-Attachment 4) This deposition was strictly aboui damages and entirely unrelated t0 the issue 0fDefendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement. Furthermore, these depositions would have been necessary in furtherance 0f the defense 0f the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino. (Azimi Decl. 11 1 1). PMK Amanda Gill was a witness regarding Plaintiff’s performance and limitations at his place ofemployment Whose deposition was undertaken by Defendants on March 3, 2020. The total cost for this deposition is listed as $1,414.50. (Defendant’s Memorandum 0f Cost-Attachment 4 This deposition was strictly about damages and entirely unrelated to the issue of Defendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement. Furthermore, these depositions would have been necessary in furtherance of the defense of the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino. (Azimi Decl. 1112). German Alexander Cornejo was a witness regarding Plaintiff’s performance and limitations at his place of employment whose deposition was undertaken by Defendants on March 3, 2020. The total cost for this deposition is listed as $573.60. (Defendant’s Memorandum 0f Cost- Attachment 4) This deposition was strictly about damages and entirely unrelated t0 the issue 0f 5 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ COST BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES \OOONGUI-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-th-Ar-tr-tr-Ar-Ab-Ar-tr-t WQQUIJ>WNHO©OOQONUI¥WNHO Defendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement. Furthermore, these depositions would have been necessary in furtherance of the defense 0f the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino (Azimi Decl. 111 3). Leslie Kim, M.D. was Plaintiff’s treating provider whose deposition was undertaken by Defendants 0n March 25, 2020. The total cost for this deposition is listed as $5,156.68. (Defendant’s Memorandum 0fCost-Attachment 4) This deposition was strictly about damages and entirely unrelated t0 the issue 0f Defendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement. Furthermore, these depositions would have been necessary in furtherance 0f the defense 0f the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino (Azimi Decl. 11 14). Timothy Davis, M.D. was Plaintiff” s treating provider whose deposition was undertaken by Defendants 0n April 30, 2020. The total cost for this deposition is listed as $2,163.83 (Defendant’s Memorandum 0f Cost-Attachment 4) This deposition was strictly about damages and entirely unrelated t0 the issue 0f Defendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion f01 Summary Judgement. Furthermore, these depositions would have been necessary in furtherance of the defense of the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino (Azimi Decl. fllS). Tatiana Voci, M.D. was the radiologist who read and interpreted a number 0f Plaintiff’s radiological and MRI studies. Plaintiff’s treating provider whose deposition was undertaken by Defendants 0n May 1, 2020. The total cost for this deposition is listed as $3,1 10.00. (Defendant’s Memorandum 0f Cost-Attachment 4) This deposition was strictly about damages and entirely unrelated t0 the issue 0f Defendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement. Furthermore, these depositions would have been necessary in furtherance of the defense of the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino (Azimi Decl. 1H6). 6 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ COST BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES \OOONGUI-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-th-Ar-tr-tr-Ar-Ab-Ar-tr-t WQQUIJ>WNHO©OOQONUI¥WNHO Plaintiff PALOMERA’S deposition was undertaken by Defendants 0n two occasions, 0n January 10, 2019 and March 25, 2020. The total cost for these two sessions are listed as $5,879.40 (Defendant’s Memorandum 0f Cost-Attachment 4) Plaintiff testified t0 his recollection 0f the accident, his residual injuries, associated symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis and the life altering experience of having a permanent spinal stimulator in place and the associated limitations on his personal and well as his vocation life. At no time was there a single mention of Louis Bonino in this deposition. Plaintiff was not once either asked nor did he volunteer any information about Louis Bonino. This deposition was strictly about damages and entirely unrelated t0 the issue 0f Defendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement Furthermore, these depositions would have been necessary in furtherance of the defense 0f the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino. (Azimi Decl. 1117). Defendant Jeremy Bonino’s deposition was undertaken by Plaintiff’s counsel, the declarant herein, 0n February 3, 2020. The total cost for this deposition is listed as $496.50 (Defendant’s Memorandum 0fCost-Attachment 4) Defendant testified t0 his relationship With defendant Jeremy Bonino, his knowledge 0f Jeremy Bonino’s fitness and driving background, the garaging of the vehicle involved in the accident, the insurance coverage for the vehicle, the identity of the insured 0n the policy covering the vehicle, the ownership and maintenance 0f the vehicle and its use 0f the vehicle for business purposes and his relationship with Louis Bonino, the owner of the Farm for Which the vehicle was used. Plaintiff would have pursued this deposition irrespective of Louis Bonino’s presence in the action and in furtherance 0f the claims against the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino. (Azimi Decl. 111 8). Defendant Louis Bonino’s deposition was undertaken by Plaintiff’s counsel, the declarant herein, on January 20, 2021. The total cost for this deposition is listed as $788.00 (Defendant’s Memorandum of Cost-Attachment 4) Defendant testified to his relationship with defendants Jeremy and Brent, his knowledge 0fJeremy Bonino’ s fitness and driving background, the garaging 0f the vehicle involved in the accident, the insurance coverage for the vehicle, the identity 0f the 7 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ COST BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES \OOONGUI-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-th-Ar-tr-tr-Ar-Ab-Ar-tr-t WQQUIJ>WNHO©OOQONUI¥WNHO insured 0n the policy covering the vehicle and the use and maintenance 0f the vehicle for business purposes. Plaintiffwould have pursued this deposition irrespective 0f Louis Bonino’s presence in the action and in furtherance 0f the claims against the remaining two defendants in the lawsuit, Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino. Albeit, of all costs delineated in the Memorandum 0f costs, this deposition is the only one with any relevance t0 Defendant Louis Bonino’s liability forming the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgement. (Azimi Decl. 1H9). Remaining Defendants Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino would have had t0 file the jury fees 0f $985.00 irrespective 0f Louis Bonino’s presence in the action and in furtherance of the claims against them personally. (Azimi Decl. 1120). Remaining Defendants Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino would have had t0 incur the Service of Process Fees 0f $5,005.24 irrespective 0f Louis Bonino’s presence in the action and in furtherance of the claims against them personally. (Azimi Decl. 1121). Remaining Defendants Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino would have had t0 incur the Witness Fees 0f $105.96 irrespective 0f Louis Bonino’s presence in the action and in furtherance of the claims against them personally. (Azimi Decl. 1122). Remaining Defendants Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino would have had t0 incur the interpreter Fees 0f $2,070.00 for Plaintiff’s depositions irrespective 0f Louis Bonino’s presence in the action and in furtherance of the claims against them personally. (Azimi Decl. 11 23). Remaining Defendants Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino would have had t0 incur the Electronic Filing and Service Fees 0f $141.33 .00 irrespective 0f Louis Bonino’s presence in the action and in furtherance of the Claims against them personally. (Azimi Decl. 1124). Remaining Defendants Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino would have had t0 incur the Electronic Document Hosting Fees 0f $2,755.48 irrespective 0f Louis Bonino’s presence in the action and in furtherance of the claims against them personally. (Azimi Decl. 1125). With the exception 0f a fraction 0f Louis Bonino’s Deposition fees, remaining Defendants Jeremy Bonino and Brent Bonino would have had t0 incur the Deposition costs 0f $31,707.85 8 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ COST BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES \OOONGUI-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-th-Ar-tr-tr-Ar-Ab-Ar-tr-t WQQUIJ>WNHO©OOQONUI¥WNHO irrespective 0fLouis Bonino’s presence in the action and in furtherance 0f the claims against them personally. (Azimi Decl. 1&6). In the months leading up to trial, counsel for Defendants filed one 0f the three defendants, Louis Bonino’s Motion for Summary Judgement 0n 0r about September 14, 2020. (Azimi Decl 1&7). Defense counsel did not produce Louis Bonino for his deposition until 14 days before Plaintiff” s opposition t0 the Motion for Summary Judgement was due 0n February 2, 202 1. (Azimi Decl. 1128). On 0r about February 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed his opposition t0 Defendant Louis Bonino’s Motion for Summary Judgement. (Azimi Decl. 1129). On or about February 18, 2021, the Court ruled granting Defendant Louis Bonino’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Azimi Decl. 1130). On 0r about March 4, 2021, Defendant filed its Memorandum 0f Costs seeking $42,770.66. (Azimi Decl. 113 1). The memorandum does not provide support for its award 0f costs. Moreover, with the exception 0f Louis Bonino’s deposition, the entirety of the remaining defendant, Jeremy and Brent Bonino’s costs would have been incurred irrespective of Louis Bonino and the need for filing the Motion for Summary Judgement that ultimately extricated the collateral Defendant, Louis Bonino. In summary the costs other than Louis Bonino’s deposition and a nominal fraction 0f the other two defendants depositions, played no role in the filing ofDefendant Louis Bonino’s Motion for Summary Judgement. Plaintiff asserts that the Memorandum 0f Costs should either be taxed in its entirety, 01 reduced t0 only reimburse the costs 0f Louis Bonino’s deposition and the filing for the Motion f01 Summary Judgement under the provisions of Code 0f Civil Procedure section 998, and 1033.5(a)(1), (2)-(3); and (C)(4)(A), and (b)(z). 9 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ COST BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES \OOONGUI-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-th-Ar-tr-tr-Ar-Ab-Ar-tr-t WQQUIJ>WNHO©OOQONUI¥WNHO ARGUMENT A. DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE BARRED FROM RECOVERING THE ENTIRETY OF THEIR ALLEGED DEFENSE COSTS, WITH TH EEXCEPTION OF THE DEPOSITION OF LOUIS BONINO AND THE FILING FEE FOR THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BECAUSE THEY PLAYED NO ROLE IN THE FILING OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY REMAINING DEFENDANTS JEREMY AND BRENT BONINO IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT 1. Legal Standard A party is subject to liability for costs may seek to reduce the claimed items 0r the amount 0fthe claimed costs, based on the circumstances under Which the costs were incurred. For example, costs recoverable under CCP §1032 are restricted to those that are reasonably necessary t0 the conduct 0f the litigation and reasonable in amount. See CCP § 1033.5(c)(2); Nelson, 72 Cal. App. 4th 111, 130. If the total costs claimed include unreasonable 0r unnecessary costs, said costs may therefore be reduced t0 costs claims that are reasonable and necessary to the litigation. Id. When a defendant’s costs are not expressly allowed and d0 not appear proper 0n their face, the burden shifts t0 the party Claiming costs. Ladas v. California State Auto. ASS ’n (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 761, 774. Generally, a “prevailing party” is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs of suit in any action 0r proceeding. (CCP § 1032(b); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Ca1.4th 599; Plancich v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (201 1) 198 Cal.App.4th 308, 312-314.) Further, California law recognizes three types of litigation costs: (1) allowable; (2) disallowable; and (3) discretionary. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5 subds. (a), (b), (c)(4).) For allowable and discretionary costs to be recoverable, they must also be “reasonably necessary t0 the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient 0r beneficial t0 its preparation,” and “reasonable in amount.” (Code Civ. Proa, § 1033.5, subds. (c)(2)-(3).) Here Jeremy and Brent Bonino are not the prevailing party. The costs outlined in the memorandum 0f costs, specifically referenced in the within motion were almost exclusively about the nature and extent 0f damages sustained by the Plaintiff. They were neither 10 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ COST BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES \OOOflmUl-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tp-tr-tr-tp-Ar-Ap-tr-tr-t WNONUI¥LNNHO©OOQONKJl¥UJNHO related to the issues forming the basis for the Summary Judgement nor played any role in the outcome 0f the motion. If specifically allowable under section 1033.5, the party challenging the costs has the burden of showing that the costs sought are not reasonable or necessary. However, if the costs not specifically allowable are objected to, then the burden of proof lies With the requesting party t0 demonstrate that the costs were necessary and reasonable. (Ladas v. Cal. State Automobile Assn. (1993) 19 Ca1.App.4th 761, 774.) Whether a cost is reasonable is a question of fact. (Lubetzky v. Friedman (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 35, 39.) In the instant action, Defendant cannot meet that burden because its requested costs d0 n01 meet the criteria set forth in Code of CiV. Proc. §1033.5, et seq. Defendant’s Memorandum 0f Costs should be denied in its entirety or taxed to the extent it does not comply with provisions 01‘ applicable law stated above. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Tax Costs should be granted and the amount of costs of Defendants’ be denied in its entirety 0r, in the alternative, taxed to a reduced amount. Dated: March 19, 2021 BD&J, PC gégzab MARK E.“1\7HLLARD BITA M. AZIMI Attorneys for PLAINTIFF 11 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ COST BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES \OOONGUI-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-th-Ar-tr-tr-Ar-Ab-Ar-tr-t WQQUIJ>WNHO©OOQONUI¥WNHO PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party t0 the Within action; my business address is 9701 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor, Beverly Hills, California 90212. On March 19, 2021, I served the foregoing document described as PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ COST BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES in the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at Beverly Hills, California, addressed as follows: D (BY U.S. MAIL) I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid t0 be placed in the United States mail at Beverly Hills, California. D (BY FACSIMILE) I caused such document t0 be sent by facsimile transmission t0 the number listed above. D (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I enclosed said document(s) in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier t0 be picked up by said overnight delivery service company for delivery t0 the addressee(s) listed 0n the service list. M (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) I caused such document to be sent by e-mail transmission to the e-mail address listed. D (BY MESSENGER SERVICE) I served the documents by providing them to a professional messenger service for service. M (STATE) I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the above is true and correct. D (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office 0f the member 0f the bar 0f this court at Whose direction the service was made. Dated: March 19, 2021 Raul Laguitan RAUL LAGUITAN 12 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ COST BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES \OOOflmUl-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tp-tr-tr-tp-Ar-kp-tr-tr-t WNONUI¥LNNHO©OOQONKII¥UJNHO PROOF OF SERVICE MAILING LIST PALOMERA-BRAVO V. BONINO Kevin K. Cholakian, Esq. Melvin F. Marcia, Esq. CHOLAKIAN & ASSOCIATES 400 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite 415 South San Francisco, California 94080 Telephone: (650) 871-9544 Facsimile: (650) 871-9552 Email: kcholakian@cholakian.net mmarcia@ch01akian.net Attorneysfor Defendants, Jeremy R. Bonino, Louis Bonino and Brent Bonino 13 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ COST BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES \OOONGUI-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tr-th-Ar-tr-tr-Ar-Ab-Ar-tr-t WQQUIJ>WNHO©OOQONUI¥WNHO PROOF OF SERVICE