Risdana vs. Tejpaul

Motion to Strike or Tax Costs

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.April 30, 2013

© O u ON Ww A W N 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MICHAEL PATRICK FARRELL, SBN: 152774 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL PATRICK FARRELL 32072 Camino Capistrano, 2™ Floor San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949-443-1900 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendants/Cross-Complainants ABDOLHAMID RISDANA and HENNY RISDANA,individually and as Trustees of the RISDANA FAMILY TRUST dated March 14, 2003 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER ABDOLHAMID RISDANA and HENNY RISDANA,individually and as Trustees of the Case No. 302013 00646667 CU BC CIC RISDANA FAMILY TRUST dated March 14, 2003, The Honorable Michael Brenner Department C- 62 Plaintiff{(s), ve PLAINTIFFS RISDANA NOTICE OF SHASHI KUMAR TEJPAUL; SHASHI K. MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX OR IN TEJPAUL, as TRUSTEE OF THE SHASHI THE ALTERNATIVE STRIKE COSTS K. TEJPAUL TRUST Dated December 15, FILED BY DEFENDANT GAIL MARIE 2003; GAIL MARIE DUNCAN; GAIL DUNCAN. MEMORANDUM OF POINTSDUNCAN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE GAIL AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT DUNCAN TRUST Dated September 27, 1990; THE EMERALD BAY INN LLC, a California limited liability company; PICAYO, LLC, a California limited liability company; IN Motion Date: August , 2017 VOGUE LLC,a California limited liability Time: 9:00 a.m. company; and DOES 3 through 20,; and DOES Department C-62 1 to 20, inclusive, THEREOF Defendants, AND ALL CROSS-ACTIONS. TO: THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August , 2017, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon Thereafter as the motion can be heard in Department 62 of the Orange County Superior Court, -1- PLAINTIFFS RISDANA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS FILED BY DEFENDANTCATT MITNC ARN w v RA R W N O L N N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 oo) 23 24 25 26 27 28 Central Justice Center located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California, Plaintiffs ABDOLHAMID RISDANA and HENNY RISDANA,individually and as Trustees of the RISDANA FAMILY TRUST dated March 14, 2003, will movethis court for an order reducing or taxing costs that are improper, unreasonable, and/or not reasonably necessary as listed in Defendant Gail Marie Duncan, individually and as trustee (Defendant DUNCAN) memorandum of costs. This motion is based on this notice, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, along with the pleadings, files and records in this action. The motion will also be based upon any oral and documentary evidence that may be presented at the hearing on the motion. Dated: June 23, 2017 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL PATRICK FARRELL S11 MICHAEL PATRICK FARRELL, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Abdolhamid Risdana and Henny Risdana 2 PLAINTIFFS RISDANA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS FILED BY DEFENDANTCATT DITNCAN o e 3 n h 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Defendant DUNCAN seek to recover more than $352,995.78 in costs, most of which are neither authorized under Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5 nor reasonable and necessary. Without providing any documentation other than a cost worksheet which includes attorney fees and costs associated with the following: 1. Filing and Motion Fees (#1): $1,978.12 2 Attorney Fees (#10): $346,700.00 3. Court Reporter... (#12): $2,705.00 4. Other (#13): $654.50 This Court should strike entirely or reduce Defendant's costs for several reasons, primarily because the costs being claimed are speculative in that Defendant has not provided any accounting or explanation as to the totals being claimed; that the amounts claimed by DEFENDANTis therefore excessive and arbitrary. There are blatant examples of Defendant Duncan’s overreach in their cost memorandum is the Claim for “Appearance Fees at $465.00 each”, administration fees, courtcall telephonic appearances, and parking fees. Another Example of Defendant DUNCAN overreaching is attorney fees. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to Defendant Duncan’s in which Defense Counsel Robert Conn has intentionally misled the court as to his hourly fee in this case. Robert Conn has filed declarations stating that his hourly billable rate for this case is $400.00 per hour. His Client, DUNCAN has failed at least two declarations, under the penalty of perjury, declaring Robert Conn is charging her $300.00. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion to tax or strike for $393,991.84 of the total amount sought should be granted. 1 -3- PLAINTIFFS RISDANA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS FILED BY DEFENDANTATT TITANIC AN W w O e N A N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IL SUMMARY OF LAW 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 both “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation” and “reasonable in amount” (Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5, subd. (c}(2)- (3). If specifically allowable under §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 to demonstrate that the costs were necessary and reasonable (Ladas v. Cal. State Automobile Assn. (1991) 19 Cal.App 4™ 761.) Whether a cost is reasonable is a question offact. (Lubetzky v. Friedman (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d | 35,39.) All costs awarded must be reasonable in amount and must have been "reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation." Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5(c) (2), (3). In the instant case and the decision of the court was a threshold decision, reached before any testimony or exhibits were offered. Yet, Defendant DUNCAN has made a claim for filing and motion fees in the amount of $1,978.12; Attorney Fees of $346,700.00 which have not bases; Court Report Fees of 2,705.00 which appear to include payments for Defendant Shashi K. Tejpul who was found by the jury have committed Financial Elder Abuse and Fraud; and “other” cost in the amount of $654.50. Defendant DUNCAN has failed not only to clearly account for the cost being claimed, but has failed to establish the costs were reasonably necessary in this litigation; that they were proper and necessarily incurred; orthat they were authorized by statute. Once a party moving to strike or tax costs properly objects to the items appearing in a cost bill, the burden of proof is on the party claiming the cost to show that it was reasonable. Ladas v. Cal.State Auto. Ass'n. 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 (1993). Defendant has made no fe PLAINTIFFS RISDANA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS FILED BY DEFENDANTCATT DY TNIC AN w r A W N O e 0 A D 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 showing of the inherent reasonableness for the items on his cost bill summary, and given that specific items were not listed on the bill, it is pure speculation on the part of the trier o f fact whether or not these cost are reasonable or not. Defendant's costs should be stricken in their entirety because they are speculative, ambiguous and not within the Court’s discretio n to grant. Items of Cost Must Have Been Reasonably Necessary. Any award of costs is subject to the rule that allowable costs shall be reasonab ly necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5(c)(2); see also Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 870 (a)(1). | Necessity of Costs Is Question of Fact. The necessity for any expenditure sought to be recovered as costs is a question of fact for the Trial judge (Moss v. Underwriters’ Report, Inc. (1938) 12 Cal.2d 266, 276, 83 P.2d 503. [either] Burden when Item Appears Improper on Its Face. When items claimed as costs do not appear on their fact to be proper and necessar y and the items are properly challenged by a Motion to Tax Costs, the burden establishing the necessity of the itemsis on the party claiming them as costs (Whitney v. Whitney (1958) 16 4 Cal.App.2d 577, 585, 330 P.2d 947; Stenzor v. Leon (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 729, 735,259 P.2d 802. Burden When Objecting to Item Proper on Its Face. Although items in a verified cost bill which appear as proper charges are pri ma facie evidence that costs were necessarily incurred, when such items are properly obje cted to, they are put in issue, and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them, as costs (Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal. App. 3d 677, 682, 214 Cal. Rptr. 461; Melnk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal. App.3d 618, 624, 134 Cal. Rptr. 602). The Code of Civil Procedure requires that in order to be recoverable, costs mu st be "reasonably necessary to the conduct ofthe litigation rather than merely convenient or b eneficial to its preparation." Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5(c) (2), (3). In this matter, because of th e lack of information and accounting provided to the Court, the Court cannot make the de termination that -5. PLAINTIFFS RISDANA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS FILED BY DEFENDANTAATT DITNICAN n o O e N N n n B h Ww W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 the deposition cost(s) were “reasonably necessary”. With only a lump sum amount be ing claimed,it is not possible for the Court to make the determination the amount being clai med by Defendant Emerald Bayis accurate, or as it pertains to this case it was reasonably necessary. III. CLAIMS COSTS FOR FILING AND MOTION FEES BY DUNCAN SHOULD BE TAXED : DEFENDANT FAILED TO CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH MOTIONS AND THEIR COSTS; AS WELL AS FILING FEES A. Filing and Motion Fees - line(s) 1. Plaintiffs object to $1978.125 of the $1,978.12 Defendant DUNCAN seek for “filing and motion fees” (Memorandum of Costs (MOC) (pg. 1 line 1). (EXHIBIT “A”) Filing and motion fees are recoverable when they are both reasonable and necessary (See Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5, subd. (¢)(2), (3).) Of the $1095.95 claimed by Defendant DUNCAN, only $00.00 corresponds to the actual filing fees charged by the Orange County Superior Court. Therefore, the remaining amount sought does notrelate to a filing or motion fee, and should not be allowed. As the Court explained in Garcia v. Hyster, Company (1994) 28 Cal.App.4™ 724), it is axiomatic that the right to recover costs is purely statutory and that in the absence of an authorizing statute, no costs can be recovered by either party. See also Ladas v. California S tate Automobile Association (1993) 19Cal.App. 4™ 761. “Because the right to costs is go verned strictly by statute, a Court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized.” Code of Civil Procedure §1032, the statute authorizing the recovery of costs by a prevailing party does not permit the recovery of all costs. Code of Civil Procedure §1033 .5 explains which cost itemsare allowable under Code of Civil Procedure §1032. Defendant/Cross- Complainant may only recover those costs specifically enumerated in Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5 which sets forth the particular items which are to be allowed, or not allowed, as costs. Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s recovery is also limited by subdivision (c) of Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5 which “provided general conditions to which costs are subje ct, including the requirement that the expenses being incurred whether or not paid, be reasonab ly -6- PLAINTIFFS RISDANA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS FILED BY DEFENDANTGATT DITNCAN w v R R W N O w N N D D 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 necessary, rather than merely convenient or beneficial and that they be reasonable in amount .” Defendant has not, and cannot demonstrate the ‘reasonable necessity" of exhibits or testimony which were never utilized. Defendant DUNCAN'S claims costs for Filing and Motion costs, as well as Service of Process which are not recoverable because of Defendant DUNCAN failed to clearly identi fy the costs as necessary to litigation and helpful to the trier of fact in reaching his decision. Indeed, of Defendant DUNCAN has been so general and so vague as not to provide a detailed accounting that it is impossible for the Court to make a determination that the cost being requested are reasonable, let alone necessary. Defendant DUNCAN claims filing and motion fees of $780.00 for motion in Limine when there are no motion fees for motion in Limine and no documentation as to the cost of filing fees for said motion. In fact, Defendant EMERALD BAY provides no supporting documentation for the filing fees for the Expartes, Demure or motion to strik e. The court should strike this cost in its entirety. IV. CLAIMS COSTS FOR ATTORNEY FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $359,39 4.50 SHOULD BE TAXED THE COST IS INFLATED, PADDED AND MISLEADI NG A. Attorney Fees - Line 10 Plaintiffs object to $346,700.00 of the $346,700.00 Defendant DUNCAN seek s for “Attorney Fees” (Memorandum of Costs (MOC) (pg. 1 line 10). (EXHIBIT “A”) Atto rney Fees are recoverable when they are both reasonable and necessary (See Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5, subd. (c)(2), (3).) and are provided by contract or statue. The claim for Attorney Fe es based on contract is in dispute and a pending motion is calendared for June 30, 2017. Of the $346,700. 00 claimed by Defendant DUNCAN, only $00.00 corresponds. Therefore, the remainin g amount sought does notrelate to a filing or motion fee, and should not be allowed. A notice motion for attorney fees is pending. No contract or stature fees are o r have been fixed at this time. Thisis an inappropriate cost entry done by Defendant DUNCAN. -7- PLAINTIFFS RISDANA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS FILED BY DEFENDANTCATT MITNCAN ( I E a O X 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended complaint, which is the operative complaint. T he third amended complaint contained eight (8) causes of action, alleges breach of promissory n otes; breach of deed of trust; foreclosure of deed of trust; back wages; elder f inancial abuse; conversion; promise made without intent to perform; and declaratory relief. The S econd Cause of action was for Breach of Contract, based on the Deed of Trust in which De fense Counsel Anthony Taylorseeks to recoverattorney fees. To recoverattorney fees under a contract, there must be an attorney fee provision and th e party seeking to recoverattorney fees must be a party to the contract. Clar v. Cacciola (1987 ) 193 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1038-1039. The Deeds of Trust did not provide for the prevai ling party to be awarded attorney fees. The Third Amended Complaint, which was the operative complaint, contained two causes of action for Breach of Written Contract in which either Gail Duncan was not a party to or that the Breach of Written Contract was based on a promissory note that did not contain any attorney fee clause. In the Third Amended Complaint for the first cause of action was plead: FIRST CA USE OF ACTION (for Breach of Written Contract re: “Promissory Notes”as to Defenda nts TejPaul, Duncan, In Vogue, LLC Emerald Bay Inn, LLC and DOES1 through 30 ). Defendant Gail Duncan individually or as a Trustee was not named as a defendant to the First Cause o f Action and therefore she has no bases or standing to claim attorney fees under a contract provis ion. The first cause of action is based solely on a promissory note that contains no attorney fee pr ovision. Had Risdana been successful on this cause of action, there would be no basis for an award of attorney fees. The reciprocalright therefore should not exist. And Defendant DUNC AN is not a signatory on the Deed of Trust or a defendant for this cause of action. In the Third Amended Complaint for the second cause of action was plead: SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (for Breach of Written Contract (Deed of Trust) as to Defend ants The Emerald Bay Inn, LLC and DOES 1 through 30). Defendant Gail Duncan, individually or as a Trustee was not named as a defendant to the Second Cause of Action, only Emerald Bay Inn was -8- PLAINTIFFS RISDANA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS FILED BY DEFENDANTCATT DIINC AN O O e e N y n n B A W N N N N N N R R N Y = m = = named, and therefore she has no bases or standing to claim attorney fees under a contract provision. If the Court does find that the Deed of Trust does contain an attorney fee clause, then such attorney fee clause is for the attorney fees related to the Breach of Contract claim, not the other seven (7) causes of action, especially attorney fees based on the fifth (5th) cause of action based on Elder Financial Abuse (Wel. and Inst. Code § 15610.30 et seq.;) because Welfare & Institutions Code § 15667.5 is a unilateral fee-shifting provision, and prevailing defendants cannot recover under it. Wood v. Santa Monica (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1101. Defense Counsel Robert Conn has failed to apportion out the approximate 45 one hundred and three (103) pages ofbilling specifically allocating attorney fees related or attributed to the Breach of Contract case of action. Defense Counsel Anthony Taylor has simply “lumped” together all of his attorney fees, failing to separate his fees out. In fact, in Defense Counsel Anthony Taylor declaration, he declared that he “personally reviewed all of these invoices each month and supervised all work billed in these invoices.” (See Declaration ofAnthony R. Taylor, page 8, paragraph 5, lines 21 to 22.) And that his “total hours billed for this case through April 2017 are 688 (which at $400/hour is $275,200). (See Declaration ofAnthony R. Taylor, page 10, paragraph 7, lines 1 to 3.). Nowhere in the Declaration of Anthony R. Taylor does he allocate the 688 hours billed as to the Breach of Contract or any other cause of action, including the Financial Elder Abuse cause of action with by statue is unilateral as to Plaintiff Abdolhamid Risdana. A notice motion for attorney fees is pending. No contract orstature fees are or have been fixed at this time. This is an inappropriate cost entry done by Defendant DUNCAN. The Court should strike the request for attorney fees in its entirety and award nothing. 1" 1H 7 1 -9- PLAINTIFFS RISDANA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS FILED BY DEFENDANT CATT DITNCAN N o O e ~ ~ N n R W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V. CLAIMS COSTS FOR COURT REPORT FEES FOR $2705.00 SHOULD BE TAXED B. Court reporter fees - line(s) 12. Plaintiffs object to $1,160.00 of the $2,705.00 Defendant DUNCAN seeks for “Court reporter fees” (Memorandum of Costs (MOC) (pg. 1 line 12). (EXHIBIT “A”) Court reporter fees are recoverable when they are both reasonable and necessary (See Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5, subd. (¢)(2),(3).) Of the $2,705.00 claimed by Defendant DUNCAN,only $1545.00 corresponds. Therefore, the remaining amount sought is believed to be the amount paid on behalf of Defendant Shashi K. Tepaul and should not be allowed. Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s recovery is also limited by subdivision (¢) of Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5 which “provided general conditions to which costs are subject, including the requirement that the expenses being incurred whether or not paid, be reasonably necessary, rather than merely convenient or beneficial and that they be reasonable in amount.” Defendant has not, and cannot demonstrate the reasonable necessity’ of exhibits or testimony which were never utilized. Defendant DUNCAN has not submitted any written documentation to support the claim that Defendant EMERALD BAY spent $2705.00 for court reporter fees. Failure to provide clear documentation for this cost is speculative at best, making it impossible for the court to decide if this was reasonably necessary to conductlitigation. The court should strike this cost by $1,160.00. VI. CLAIMED COSTS FOR “OTHER” - COURT CALL AND PARKING FOR $654.50 SHOULD BE TAXED C. Other fees - line(s) 13. Plaintiffs object to $654.50 of the $654.50 Defendant DUNCANseek for “Other” fees” (Memorandum of Costs (MOC) (pg. 1 line 13). (EXHIBIT “A”) These fees are not provided in Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5 . Other fees may be recoverable when they are both reasonable -10- PLAINTIFES RISDANA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS FILED BY DEFENDANTCATT MIC AN O O 0 N N n n B s W N N O R D D N R N R N N ® Q R 6 RR U 8 2 8 08 ®» 9 a n E O 0 ~~ oo and necessary (See Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5, subd. (c)(2), (3).) Of the $654.50 claimed by Defendant DUNCAN, $00.00 corresponds. CourtCall fees and parking fees are not allowed and should not be allowed. Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s recovery is also limited by subdivision (c) of Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5 which “provided general conditions to which costs are subject, including the requirement that the expenses being incurred whether or not paid, be reasonably necessary, rather than merely convenient or beneficial and that they be reasonable in amount.” Defendant has not, and cannot demonstrate the reasonable necessity’ of exhibits or testimony which were never utilized. Defendant DUNCAN has not submitted any written documentation to support the claim that Defendant DUNCAN spent $654.50 for courtcalls and parking. Failure to provide clear documentation for this cost is speculative at best, making it impossible for the court to decide if this was reasonably necessary to conductlitigation. The court should strike this cost by $654.50. Plaintiffs RISDANA respectfully request that the Court tax or strike Defendant DUNCANas set forth below: r d Filing and Motion fees be Stuck in its entirety * ND Attorney Fees be Struck in its entirety; L o Court Reporter be Struck by $1,160.00; 4. “Other” - (courtcalls and parking) be Stuck in its entirety. II. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs RISDANA respectfully request that this Court grant their motion to tax and -11- PLAINTIFFS RISDANA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS FILED BY DEFENDANTCYATT DIINO AN O o o C ~ a N W n ES N W w N o - n o n o n N n N N o [\ ®] N o N o N Y -_ - po h - po t f t - Yo na h - p t - o o | N N w n B S w o N o br ed [o w] \ O o o ~ J a N w n B W w [\ ] - o reduce or strike Defendant DUNCAN'S costs memorandum by $349,838.12, leaving a total cost of $3,157.66. Dated: June 23,2017 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL PATRICK FARRELL 1/811 MICHAEL PATRICK FARRELL, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Abdolhamid Risdana and Henny Risdana -12- PLAINTIFFS RISDANA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS FILED BY DEFENDANTCATT DINAN EXHIBIT “A” MC-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, stale bar number, end address): FOR COURT USE ONLY ROBERT L. CONN Bar No.: 93655 -Attorney at Law 1048 Irvine Avenue, #228 Newport Beach, CA 92660 TeLeeroneno: (949) 646-1900 raxwo. atTorney For (Name): Defendants, Gail Duncan, individually, and as Trustee INSERT NAME OF COURT, JUDICIAL DXSTRICT, AND BRANCH COURT,IF ANY: ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF. ABDOLHAMID RISDANA,et al. DEFENDANT: SHASHI KUMAR TEJPAUL,et al. MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) 0201300646667 The following costs are requested: TOTALS 1. Filing and motion fEES Loitieas 1. $ 2 JUTY BES Littee ans 2.% 3. Jury food @nd I0dgingoo.3.9% 4, Deposition COSIS LLL...itineraries 4% 5, SEIVICE Of PIOCESS «ott t tite ttt titionteetaaaa 5% B. AHACHMENE EXPENSES otter ott t aaa toate ates seen ee 6.5 7. Surety bond PremiUms .... o.oo.eeeean 7.% 8. WINES EBS «ott itties 8.% 9. Court-ordered ranscripls oieeeeea 8. % 10. Attorney fees (enter here if contractual or statutory fees are fixed without necessity of a court determination; otherwise a noticed motion is required)iii10. $ 11. Models, blowups, and photocopies of exhibits ........iia11.8% 12. Court reporter fees as established by statute... ......cLiii12. % 13 ORB ttt e teeeeeee eeeaeeae13.% TOTAL COSTS © it oti et tte eee tee ee eee eee ee eeeee $ 352.995.78 | am the attorney, agent, or party who claims these costs. To the best of my knowledge and belief this memorandum of costs is correct and these costs were necessarily incurred in this case. Date: June 8, 2017 ER ROBERTL.CONNPNTComer (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE) (Proof of service on reverse) Code of Clvit Procedure, PeCounchofSolan” MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) 56 1032, 1032.5Judicial Council of California MC-010 [Rev. July %, 1939) MC-011 SHORT TITLE: fons CASE NUMBER: 30-2013-00646667 MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) 1. Filing and motion fees Paperfiled a Appearance fees (2x $465.00 = $930.00) b. Demurrers (3x $60.00 = $180.00) c. Demurrer with court reporter fee ($30) d. Motions to continue trial/bifurcate/Judg (3x $60) e. Motions in limine (5 x $60 = $300.00) ¢ American Eagle filing admin fees (attachment) Filing § 930.00 s 180.00 s 90.00 5 $180.00 5 $300.00 5 298.12 g. Information about additional filing and motion fees is contained in Attachment 1g. TOTAL 1. $1,978.12 2. Jury fees . Date Fee & mileage a. $ b. $ Cc. $ d. $ e. [__] information about additional jury fees is contained in Attachment 2e. TOTAL 2. $0.00 3. Juror food: $ and lodging: $ TOTAL 3. $0.00 4. Deposition costs Name of Video- depanent Taking Transcribing Travel taping Subtotals a. Henny Risdana g Yes $ Yes $ $ § $958.16 b. $ $ $ $ $ c. $ $ $ $ $ d. $ $ $ $ $ e. [__] Information about additional deposition costs is contained in Attachment 4e. TOTAL 4. $958.16 (Continued on reverse) Page __1__of _4 Form Approved for Optional Use Judiciat Council of California MC-011 [Rev. July 1, 1399) MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) Code of Civil Procedure, §6§ 1032, 1033.5 CASE NUMBER: 30-2013-00646667 SHORT TITLE: 5. Service of process Name of person Public Registered Other served officer process Publication (specify) a, $ $ $ $ b. $ $ $ $ c. $ $ $ $ d. {__] Information about additional costs for service of process is contained in Attachment 5d. TOTAL 5. $0.00 6. Attachment expenses (specify): 6. $0.00ee a at eh se ean hea aaa sama hha em raha saa ae aaa ay Shee es maa ae es rae aah eae eee eae7. Surety bond premiums (itemize bonds and amounts): 7.1 $0.00 8. a. Ordinary witness fees Name of witness Daily fee Mileage Total (1 days at $iday __ miesat d¢imile .... 3 (2) days at $iday __ milesat ¢/mile .... $ (3) days at $day miles at ¢/mile .... § (4) days at $/day ___milesat ¢/mile .... § (5) days at $lday miles at dimile .... $ (6) [__] Information about additional ordinary witness fees is contained in Attachment 8a(6). SUBTOTAL 8a. $0.00 {Continued on next page) Page 2 of _4 MC-011 {Rev. July 1, 1999) MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: 30-2013-00646667 MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) (Continued) 8. b. Expert fees {per Code of Civil Procedure section 998) Name of witness Fee (1) hours at § tr... § (2) hours at $ thr% (3) hours at $ fr... § (4) hours at $ [1SE (5) [1 Information about additional expert witness fees is contained in Attachment 8b(5). SUBTOTAL 8b. | $0.00 c. Court-ordered expert fees Name of witness Fee (1) hours at § hr... § (2) hours at $ hr8 (3) [] information about additional court-ordered expert witness feesis contained in Attachment 8¢(3). SUBTOTAL 8c. $0.00 TOTAL (8a, 8b, &8c) 8. $0.00 9. Court-ordered transcripts(specify): s. $0.00 10. Attorney fees (enter here if contractual or statutory fees are fixed without necessity of a court determination; otherwise a noticed motion is required): e10. $346,700.00 11. Models, blowups, and photocopies of exhibits(specify:11. $0.00 12. Court reporter fees (as established by statute) a. (Name ofreporter): County of Orange Fees: $ 1,545.00 b. (Name of reporter): R.Ellen Shoaff Fees: $ 1,160.00 ¢. [1 information about additional court reporter fees is contained in Attachment 12c¢. TOTAL 12. $2,705.00 13. Other(specify): . CourtCall appearances.($374); Parking ($280.50) (SEE NEXT PAGE)... 13. $654.50 TOTAL COSTSLiiieiie ie i eerieaa $ {Additional information may be supplied on the reverse) Page __3___ of _4 MC-011 [Rev. July 1, 1399) MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: 30-2013-00646667 MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) (Continued) 10 H 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ATTACHMENT 1.g. - FILING FEES American Legal administrative filing charges for each document filed: $25.28 - first filings/appearance (Sept 2013) = $25.28 $21.15 - first appearance, Gail Duncan, individually, Dec 30, 2013 = $21.15 $9.00 - (CMC; demurrer Reply; answer to cross-complaint; Joint Litigation Plan; Notice of Ruling; cross-complaint; 3x Aug 2016 re bifurcation,etc.; Aug 2016 opposition to ex parte motion; motions in limine (3x); opposition to Plaintiffs’ motions in limine = $135.00 $11.10 - May 2014; Sept 2015; motion to continue trial, March 2016; motion to bifurcate, June 2016; 3x motions in limine: 7 x $11.10 = $77.70 $18.89 - opposition to motion to withdraw = $18.89 $20.10 - Sept 2016 = $20.10 TOTAL: $298.12 COURTCALL TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES: [Note: The use oftelephonic appearances normally reduces the attorney fees incurred in making the appearance by a minirnum of $450.00,ifnot $600.00 or more.] Aug 2013: $116.00 (CMC) Dec 2013: $86.00 (Demurrer) July 2015: $86.00 (Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend) Aug 2016: $86.00 (attorney motion to withdraw) TOTAL: $374.00 PARKING: Deposition Parking: $15 (Gail's depo, March 2015); $11.25 (SK's depo, March 2015); $3.75 (Hamid's depo, May 2015) = 30.00 Trial: $20.00 on each of Oct 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26, 2016 = $240.00 Oct 3, 2016 ($7.50); Oct 27, 2016 ($3.00) = $10.50 TOTAL = $280.50 Page 3 _of_4 MC-01% (Rev. July 1.1399) MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) PROOF OF SERVICE [Risdana, et al. v. Tejpaul, et al.] STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18, and am not a party to the within action; my business address is: 1048 Irvine Avenue, #228, Newport Beach, California 92660. On June 8, 2017, I am serving the foregoing document described as MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY); MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) [FOR DEFENDANTS GAIL DUNCAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND GAIL DUNCAN, AS TRUSTEE on the following interested parties in this action: Email Service Addresses: Anthony R. Taylor ataylor@awattorneys.com ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP 18881 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 William Stocker w.stocker.law@gmail.com Attorney at Law 31878 Del Obispo 118-606 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Michael P. Farrell mpfarrell5@sbcglobalnet Law Office of Michael P. Farrell 32072 Camino Capistrano, 2™ Floor San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Shashi Kumar Tejpaul skpaull@aol.com 1404 North Coast Highway Laguna Beach, CA 92651-1341 X (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) Iam causing such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the persons listed on the attached service list at the office addresses listed above. I declare that under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on June 8, 2017, at Newport Beach, California. ROBERT CONN Proof of Service 10 3 12 13 14 I5 16 17 18 19 20 2] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF ORANGE ~~) I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 32072 Camino Capistrano, 2" Floor, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675. On June 23, 2017, I caused to be served the following document(s) described as follows: PLAINTIFFS RISDANA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX ORIN THE ALTERNATIVE STRIKE COSTS FILED BY DEFENDANT GAIL DUNCAN; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF On the following interested parties in this action: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST [] (VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL-CCP §§ 1013(a)); 2015.5: By placing a true copy thereof] enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as above, and placing each for collection and mailing on the date following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with my firm’s business practice and collection and processing of mail with the United States Postal Service and correspondence placed for collection and mailing would be deposited with the United States Postal Service at Mission Viejo, California, with postage thereon fully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of business. [X] (BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) -CCP § 1010.6(C)(6) & CRC 2.250 et seq. & 2.251(a)(2)(B): Based on a court order or an agreementofthe parties to accept service by-mail or electronic transmission through One Legal Online Court Services, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed on the attached Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. [1] (VIA FACSIMILE-CCP §§ 1011, 2015.5): By arranging for facsimile transmission from facsimile number 714-661-1333 to the abovelisted facsimile number(s) prior to 5:00 p.m. I am readily familiar with my firm's practice of collection and processing of correspondencevia facsimile transmission(s) and any such correspondence would be transmitted in the ordinary course of business. The facsimile transmission(s) was reported as complete and without error. [1] (VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL/COURIER-CCP §§ 1013(c)), 2015.5: I caused the above documentsto be served by having a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as above, and placing each for collection by overnight mail service or overnight courier service. 1am readily familiar with my firm's business practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the processing of correspondence for overnight mail or overnight courier service, and any correspondence PROOF OF SERVICE “10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [1] [X] [ 1 (FEDERAL): I declare that I am employed in the office of a member ofthe bar of this placed for collection for overnight delivery would in the ordinary course of business, be delivered to an authorized courier or delivery authorized by the overnight mail carrier to receive documents, with delivery fees paid or provided for, that same day for delivery on the following business day. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I CAUSED TO BE personally delivered the documents to the personsat the addresses listed on the attached Service List. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office by leaving the documents in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or an individual in charge ofthe office. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not less than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. (STATE): Ideclare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California) that the foregoing is true and correct. Court at whose direction the gervice was made. Executed on June 23, 2017 in Missipn Viejp,|Californi i)SON PROOF OF SERVICE 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST Robert LL. Conn, Esq. 1048 Irvine Avenue, #228 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: 949-646-1900 Facsimile: 949-646-1991 Via e-mail: robbyconn@sbeglobal.net Counsel for Defendants Gail Duncan, an individual; and Gail Duncan, as Trustee ot eh Gail Duncan Trust dated September 27, 1990 William Stocker, Esq. Law Offices of William Stocker 31878 Del Obispo- 118-606 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Via e-mail: w.stocker.law@gmail.com; Counsel for Defendant Shashi Kumar Tejpaul, an individual; and as Trustee of the Shashi Tejpaul Shashi Kumar Tejpaul 1404 North Coast Highway Laguna Beach, CA 92651-1341 Telephone: 949-207-8015 E-mail: skpaull(@aol.com In Pro Per Anthony Taylor, Esq. Aleshire & Wynder, LLP 18881 Von Karmen Ave, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: 949-223-1170 Facsimile: 949-223-1180 Via e-mail: ataylor@awattorneys.com; Counsel for Defendant Emerald Bay Inn, LLC. dba “The Art Hotel” PROOF OF SERVICE