Patch vs. Jackson Demarco Tidus & Peckenpaugh

Motion to Strike or Tax Costs

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.April 4, 2014

N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MICHAEL MCCARTHY (SBN 89588) MARSHALL R. COLE (SBN 266907) NEMECEK & COLE A Professional Corporation 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300 Encino, CA 91436-2300 Tel: (818) 788-9500 / Fax: (818) 501-0328 Attorneys for Defendants JACKSON TIDUS (fka JACKSON DEMARCO TIDUS & PECKENPAUGH), A CALIFORNIA LAW CORPORATION AND MICHAEL L. TIDUS, AN INDIVIDUAL SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER RYAN PATCH, an individual; ROGER Case No.: 30-2014-00715089-CU-CO-CIJC FRANKS, an individual, and DOES 1-10 [Assigned to Hon. Walter P. Schwarm, Dept. C19] Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT JACKSON DEMARCO Vv. TIDUS & PECKENPAUGH’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE OR JACKSON DeMARCO TIDUS & PECKENPAUGH, A California Law TO TAX PLAINTIFF’S COSTS Corporation; MICHAEL L. TIDUS, an individual; and DOES 11-30 RES.ID: 72937543 Defendants. DATE: March 26, 2019 TIME: 1:30 p.m. DEPT: C19 Complaint Filed: April 4, 2014 Trial: May 4, 2018 TO ALL PARTIES, THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, AND THE HONORABLE COURT: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 26, 2019 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the Court may hear the matter, in Department C19 ofthe above-entitled court, located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California, Defendant JACKSON DeMARCO TIDUS & PECKENPAUGH (“Jackson Tidus™), A California Law Corporation, will and hereby does move this Court for an orderstriking or taxing the Memorandum of Costs (“Memo of Costs”) of 1 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF'S COSTS 2391003 tidus motion to tax costs(2024334.1).docx N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 8 1 8 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 HE N ~ N O N W n 10 11 12 14 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff RYAN PATCH (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to California Code ofCivil Procedure, section 1033.5 on the grounds that Plaintiff has sought costs that are unreasonable and not authorized by law to be awarded. This motion is based on this Notice and the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed concurrently herewith, and such further evidence and argument as the Court may receive at the hearing. Motion to Tax Costs 1. Item No. 1, Filing and Motion Fees - Plaintiff attempts to recover improper costs as identified in the Memo of Costs Worksheet and Attachment 1(g); vA Item No. 4, Deposition Costs - Improper inclusion of deposition costs pursuant to California Code ofCivil Procedure (C.C.P.), section 1033.5(a)(3); 3. Item No. 11, Court Reporter Fees as established by Statute - Plaintiff fails to meet burden of proof and must provide adequate and admissible evidence as to the basis for the cost; 4. Item No. 12, Models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits - Improper calculations regarding copy charges pursuant to C.C.P. section 1033.5(a)(12); and 5. Item No. 16, Other - Plaintiff seeks $86,326.86 in costs which are expressly prohibited pursuant to C.C.P. section 1033.5 as well as California case law. DATED: November 30, 2018 NEMECEK & COLE ow TT VHCHAGHARCCARTHY MARSHALL R. COLE Attorneys for Defendants JACKSON TIDUS (fka JACKSON DEMARCO TIDUS & PECKENPAUGH), A CALIFORNIA LAW CORPORATION AND MICHAEL L. TIDUS, AN INDIVIDUAL 2 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF'S COSTS2391003 tidus motionto tax costs(2024334.1).docx A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Contents MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES .........cccuessessecseesasssssssssssssssussssssosassassassississsassis 6 L INTRODUCTION creer csmnmmnrsmormmmnsmmemerenesnsssssassmpes tistsasaasrsGraISHED 6 IL. THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S ENTIRE MEMORANDUM AND TO TAX UNSUPPORTED, UNNECESSARY, AND IMPROPER ITEMS OF COSTS siennarsstisososomissssssimmons 6 A. The Court May Entirely Strike an Unsupported Memorandum of Costs ................. 6 B. Only Certain Costs Are Recoverable...cmmpsmnonmmsmsnssmnsanv 7 IMI. THE COURT MUST TAXTIEM 1: FILING AND MOTION FEES ..covamumsemmesmnrenes 8 IV. THE COURT MUST TAX ITEM 4: DEPOSITION COSTS ...cccisussuomumussissmssasssovasvosasnss 8 V. JACKSON TIDUS SEEKS CLARIFICATION ON ITEM 11: COURT BEPORTER FEES. AS ESTABLISHED BY BTEIUITE. ....oxmmmonammmmmamummsnmmsossosman 10 VI. THE COURT MUST TAX ITEM 12 MODELS, ENLARGEMENTS, AND PHOTOCOPIES OF EXHIBITS ...ccvsnvmmocmmmenssssessmmsesssasnsarsssnsnrsnannsassnsanesesssssssthSaRs aR 8955 19555 10 VII. THE COURT MUST TAXITEMS 16: OTHER.......oxsesscssisiinngas issassimmsi 12 A. Courtesy Copies 10 Department ......ooeesesssessssnisassssssssinssissnssnnsasssiasssssessivassaousssnssssns 12 E-K. Trial TralSCEIPES. .. cn cmeeemsssnssnsanennorsess ssf iss Maan ssidnsssansasaiants sos seams sss soasinssssassasosoaess 13 L. NVNV ATIBIVIIES: carmen samerannsssss 56350 H0REASH G4 TSBAAR EO SHSANPAEAS SESCOS H TAs 13 M. Dectimient Retrieval Mimute OrtBs cisssmmsanarmssnosisssissies 14 0. Berkley Research (Expert Depo Fees) ...iciiiiasissasissivassssasssassasasstsnsissssnssesnssssosss 14 P-T. Flight, Car Rental, Taxi and Hotel COStS .......ccceunuiirininiecniscsinnicncnininsiiiiniisiinens 15 Ek COPY CHBLEES ......cocsermermrensonsssvssnnsnsesnsisd SEH E0H13 5543 EREA AER AAS SHE NERS 504 THRRERIAR SSF imssonsos 15 Vand W. Mileage and Parking Fees «.ammsssumummmsvossorssssmnmmssssissmscosanesss 16 VIIL CONCLUTSTOMN ssiasnaassaims oa mesorsossssanss asssoososo ees omomas sas assssass creams (05323 554 A5EOS1931 17 3 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF'S COSTS2391003 tidus motion to tax costs(2024334.1).docx N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 8 1 8 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 97 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Arntz Contracting Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 464 ................. 14 County ofRiverside v. City ofMurrieta (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 616..........ccoorvruirienirrcrnnrerunnnnn. 11 Diels ». KGULTT: Trey {T98) 17 CalABADorcsmssammmensmasssmsomsmemrmsanssmoassmmmeensssom 7 Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44ccc15 Hsu v. Semiconductor Systems (2005) 126 C.A.4th 1330.....cccciiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinice, 9 Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.dth 1122 ...ooioieiiiieiineiicicieiecesses6,8 Ladas v. Calif. State Automobile Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761 ......cccevveiiiiiiiiiiiis passim Meister v. Regents ofthe University ofCalifornia (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 437...................... 6, 8, 14 Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618 .....cooiimiiiiiii 10 Mossv. Underwriters Report, Inc. (1938) 12 Cal.2d 266.........ccccveviviiniininininiiiciiieieeeienns 7 Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 111 ..ooviiiriiiiiiiiiiee,8 Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678 ......c.cceevviiviiiiiiiinnne 10 Parker v. City ofLos Angeles (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 556......cocoovoiiiiniiiiiiiiici 13 Rose, Heris Corp: (1985) 168 CAl.APP.IA SUPP. 0.cvicoussmsnmnrsmnssnsmnsessessnsssnssasnsis shissabsassss 54555 13 Seever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App 4th 1550........coiiiiniiice 12 Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621......c.cccruerernerscrnssrnsssnssnissssessessessssiansssssnssssssssisssassssses 6, 8, 14 Strickland v. Becks (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d SUPP. 18....cvcvssessssesisussasassasussisismssssnsnspsinsssossvsssassssnesss 13 Thrifty Payless, Inc.v. Mariners Mile Gateway, LLC (2010) 185 Cal.App. 4th 1050..............c...... 13 Van De Kamp v. Gumbiner (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d1260...12 STATUTES California Rules of Court, Rule 827(dX(1) suisissmrmmmimsrsisasmseommsmsnnses 6 Code of Civil Procedire § 1032 comsninuammsammesnemvvssassvsasssomamsmnrssss as oomaaemes 15 Code ofCivil Procedure § 1033.5..c.cumimmmmsmmunimmssssisssssssssssessmsassssnsasassossnsasseseasas 7,12, 15 Code of Civil Procedure § 1033. 38){I 2] vawsrsummmmsummermausmmmmssmnssnmesessmessssnsarsss sasseassnrsamnsat 10 4 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF'S COSTS2391003 tidus motion to tax costs(2024334.1).docx N E M E C E K & C O L E A PR OF ES SI ON AL CO RP OR AT IO N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 S H W N N O Y D n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(2)(13) .uiiriiiimeirieiieeriierieerieesieese reeseesieesneenessaeesneeneas 16 Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(2)(3).cccueerreinieniiinieiiieciessansaeenes 9,14,15,16 Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(D)(1)..ecreerrerrererrenrecsuesssuesssiessnsssenssrnessnessnsssnesssnssnsssssessassssnessas 14 Code oE CIVIL Procedin § LOBE,SUBICELunn nanensessosinonsi sss ossmmsvs memosais sis sshdamas i Cade of Civil PIOGEOuTE § L033.SUCH2) onnnreoinseisisiissuissssinssmmssasmitoiansnssi 8,12, 14 Code 6L Civil PIOCEure § 1033,SUCNDYA) connnonnssinssmsiinssisssmnasssas eissioniSessions 7 5 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF'S COSTS2391003 tidus motion to tax costs(2024334.1).docx N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 8 1 8 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 + ~ N O N W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs (“Memo of Costs”) which contains numerous miscalculations and seeks reimbursement of costs which the law clearly prohibits. Plaintiff failed to even consider the applicable statute when generating the Memo of Costs because a cursory review of the Memo of Costs establishes that Plaintiff seeks Costs which this Court is required to reject. As discussed in detail below,items 1, 4, 11, 12, and 16 of the Memo of Costs contain several errors as well as the inclusion of costs which are expressly disallowed by statute. Of the $116,478.27 for which Plaintiff seeks reimbursement, the Court must tax the amount of $94,007.20 which allows the Plaintiff to recover $22,470.98 in Costs. IL THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO STRIKE PLAINTIFE’S ENTIRE MEMORANDUM AND TO TAX UNSUPPORTED, UNNECESSARY, AND IMPROPER ITEMS OF COSTS The Court has authority to strike the entire Memorandum of Costs, items ofcosts, and to tax items of cost. A. The Court May Entirely Strike an Unsupported Memorandum of Costs Under California law, “[I]f the items appearing in a cost bill appearto be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand,if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proofis on the party claiming them as costs.” (Ladas v. Calif. State Automobile Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) Moreover, the Court has discretion to strike or tax even recoverable costs where the costs appear unjustifiably inflated. It is firmly established that the costs claimed must be reasonable (CRC, Rule 8.27(d)(1).) “A [costs] request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstances permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny onealtogether.” (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635; Meister v. Regents ofthe University ofCalifornia (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 437, 455 [request “unreasonably inflated,” no award affirmed]; Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1138 [“[t]o the extent a trial court is concerned that a particular award is 6 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF'S COSTS2391003 tidus motion to tax costs(2024334.1).docx N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 8 1 8 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 EE N V S O o 0 9 O N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 excessive, it has broad discretion to adjust the fee downward or deny an unreasonable fee altogether.”].) Plaintiff's Memo of Costsis the perfect example of a cost bill that is excessive and unreasonably inflated. Plaintiff includes costs which are improper, unverifiable and expressly prohibited by statute. Plaintiffis clearly aware of his conduct in seeking these costs as it is patently obvious that no effort was made to even comply with Code ofCivil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) section 1033.5. This Court has the discretion to, and should, strike the Memo of Costs in its entirety if it deems it appropriate. B. Only Certain Costs Are Recoverable A reading of C.C.P. section 1033.5 as a whole reveals that the first step in making an award of costs involves a determination that the cost claimed is one a party is entitled to recover under the statute. C.C.P. section 1033.5(c), states in pertinent part, “[a]ny award of costs is subject to the following: ... Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct ofthe litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficialto its preparation; Allowable costs shall be reasonable in amount; Items not mentioned in this section and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court's discretion.” (C.C.P. § 1033.5(c)(2)-(4).). Under C.C.P. sections 1033.5(c)(2) and (3), before the trial court determines the reasonableness of any amount of costs in terms ofits relationshipto litigation and its amount, the court must make a determination that the cost is “allowable.” As the California Supreme Court has found: “The right to recover costs exists solely by virtue of statute and the award of costs can be justified only if permitted by a statutory provision.” (Moss v. Underwriters Report, Inc. (1938) 12 Cal.2d 266, 274.) The California Supreme Court has interpreted section 1033.5 to mean thattrial courts only have “discretion to award or deny any additional items of costs that are not mentioned aseither allowable or nonallowable in section 1033.5.” (Davis v. KGO-TV, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 436, 444.) Notall litigation-related expensesare allowable as costs. (Id. at 440.) Thus, when awarding any item as “costs” underthestatute,a first and necessary determination a trial court must make is whether any item claimed is a “cost” thatit can award underthe statute. Moreover, every cost awarded must be one “reasonably necessary to the conduct ofthe litigation rather than merely 7 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF'S COSTS2391003 tidus motionto tax costs(2024334.1).docx N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 8 1 8 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 convenient or beneficial to it.” (C.C.P. § 1033.5(c)(2).) The burden rests with the claimant to show that expenses of doubtful necessity are reasonable and necessary. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 111, 132.) III. THE COURT MUST TAX ITEM 1: FILING AND MOTION FEES Plaintiff seeks a total of $2,735.00 in costs associated with filing and motion fees. The Worksheet and Attachment 1(G) of the Memo of Costs contain costs which are improperly sought on behalf of Plaintiff For instance, Item C of the Worksheetis a filing fee for a Demurrer & Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint in the amount of $120.00. The original Cross-Complaint in this action was filed only against Roger Franks. Since Plaintiff was not even a party to the original Cross-Complaint surely he cannot recover a cost which he did not incur. Roger Franks dismissed his case long before trial and, as a result, Plaintiff cannot recoup this cost. Item E of the Worksheetis a filing fee for a Motion to Set Aside Default in the amount of $60.00. The motion was brought on behalf of Roger Franks after Jackson Tidus entered default against him. Plaintiff cannot recover the $60.00 filing fee incurred on behalf of Roger Franks. “A [costs] request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstances permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether.” (Serrano v. Unruh, supra, at 635; Meister v. Regents ofthe University ofCalifornia, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at 455 [request “unreasonably inflated,” no award affirmed]; Ketchum v. Moses, supra, 24 Cal.4th at 1138 [“[t]o the extent a trial court is concerned that a particular award is excessive,it has broad discretion to adjust the fee downward or deny an unreasonable fee altogether.”].) Based upon the improperinclusion of the costs as identified above, at the very least, Plaintiff's request in the amount of $2,735.00 must be taxed and reduced to $2,555.00. IV. THE COURT MUST TAX ITEM 4: DEPOSITION COSTS Plaintiffs Memo of Costs requests $13,592.54 in costs related to depositions. This amount is required to be taxed and reduced from $13,592.54 to $11,119.35. First, Plaintiff requests reimbursement for the deposition of Paul Van Hoomissen twice (see Attachment 4(e) items A and Q, despite the fact that his deposition was taken once. In 8 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF'S COSTS2391003 tidus motion to tax costs(2024334.1).docx N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 8 1 8 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 O O © 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 addition, Plaintiff requests that this Court award Plaintiff the late fees associated with the failure to pay for the deposition transcript in a timely manner. Exhibit C, Page 15 of 15 is the invoice for the deposition costs associated with Mr. Van Hoomissen. The amountof the invoice is $750.85. Plaintiff obviously did not pay this invoice, and was thus sent a second invoice in the amount of $825.94 which is referenced at Exhibit C, Page 1 of 15 and included late charges. Instead of requesting $750.85, Plaintiff attempts to obtain double recovery from the Court in the amount of $1,576.79 ($825.94 + $750.85.). Plaintiffis only entitled to recoverthe cost of $750.85 in connection with the deposition of Paul Van Hoomissen. Any late fees associated with the failure to pay invoices in a timely manner is not reasonably necessary to the litigation. The only costs that are recoverable in connection the taking of a deposition include “an original and one copy of depositions taken by the claimant and one copy of depositions taken by the party against whom costs are allowed...” (C.C.P. § 1033.5(a)(3).) The Court must tax Plaintiff's request for the deposition of Paul Van Hoomissen in the amount of $825.94. Plaintiff seeks to recover expediting fees in the amount of $613.80 for the deposition of Gregory Brunette, and $434.70 for the deposition of Peter Wrobel.It is error to award costs for expediting preparation of deposition transcripts, where the court recognized that costs were not allowed under C.C.P. 1033.5(a)(3). (Hsu v. Semiconductor Systems (2005) 126 C.A.4th 1330, 1342.) The Court must tax Plaintiff's request for deposition costs in the amount of $1,048.50. Plaintiff seeks to recoverfees for obtaining “rough” copies of the deposition transcripts of Marc Alexander in the amount of $134.55, William Michael Hensley in the amount of $11.20, Mohamed Alim Malik in the amount of $81.00, and John Petrasich in the amount of $177.00. The only costs that are recoverable in connection the taking of a deposition include “an original and one copy of depositions taken by the claimant and one copyof depositions taken by the party against whom costs are allowed...” (C.C.P. 1033.5(a)(3).) Rough transcripts are not recoverable and the Court must tax the amount of $403.75. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for a cancellation fee of the deposition of John Petrasich in the amount of $195.00 identified in Attachment 4(e) item L, referenced at Exhibit C, Page 10 of 15. The only costs that are recoverable in connection the taking of a deposition include “an 9 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF'S COSTS2391003 tidus motion to tax costs(2024334.1).docx N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 original and one copy of depositions taken by the claimant and one copy of depositions taken by the party against whom costs are allowed...” (C.C.P. 1033.5(a)(3). The Court must tax the amount of $195.00. Ofthe $13,592.54 which Plaintiff seeks to recover, this Court must tax Item 4, Deposition Costs in the amount of $2,473.19. Plaintiff's recoverable amount is $13,592.54 - $2,473.19 which equals: $11,119.35. V. JACKSON TIDUS SEEKS CLARIFICATION ON ITEM 11: COURT REPORTER FEES AS ESTABLISHED BY STATUTE Plaintiff seeks the recovery of $1,189.68 for fees allegedly paid to “Jenny Craig (2018 Trial).” Jackson Tidus disputes this cost because court reporting fees were paid by defendants Michael Tidus and Jackson Tidus. Plaintiff in fact refused to pay for court reporting fees. Additionally, Exhibit F, Page 2 lists the fee as incurred for some type ofjury charge. Moreover, Exhibit F, Page 1 references an invoice and payment to the Superior Court of California. Jenny Craig, the court reporter, is not employed by the Superior Court of California, and thus payment was not made to her as identified in the Memo of Costs. As a result, Jackson Tidus is uncertain whether or not this cost should be subject to a motion to tax, but nonetheless Jackson Tidus has put forth sufficient evidence to force Plaintiff to prove the cost is allowable. If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand,if the itemsare properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proofis on the party claiming them as costs. (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 624; Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 698-699.) VI. THE COURT MUST TAX ITEM 12 MODELS, ENLARGEMENTS, AND PHOTOCOPIES OF EXHIBITS Plaintiff requests $4,727.84 in costs allegedly associated with copy charges for exhibits. However, based upon the evidence submitted, this Court must tax and reduce the amount of $4,727.84 to $458.09. C.C.P. section 1033.5(a)(12), provides, “[m]odels and blowups of exhibits and photocopies of exhibits may be allowed [as costs to the prevailing party under Code of Civil 10 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF'S COSTS2391003 tidus motion to tax costs(2024334.1).docx N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 8 1 8 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Procedure section 1032] if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact.” In Ladas, supra, the court held that “on its face this statutory language excludes as a permissible item of costs exhibits not used at trial, which obviously could not have assisted the trier of fact.” (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 775 [under § 1033.5, subd. (a)(12), “fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial]; see, County ofRiverside v. City ofMurrieta (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 616, 629 [request for recovery of costs for blowups and photocopies properly denied when items not reasonably helpful to trial court].) In support of his request, Plaintiff attaches Exhibit G, Pages 1-3 in support of said amount. Page one identifies an invoice in the amount of $458.09, which Jackson Tidus doesnot seek to tax. Exhibit G, Pages 2 and 3 are titled “PaperCutMF” and “Invoiced Printing.” The specific amountrequested on pages 2 and 3 is cutoff and not legible, but more importantly there is no indication that these ledgers represent actual charges for photocopies of exhibits for use attrial. In fact, Page 2 of the invoice reflects that 24,071 pages were printed in connection with 490 printing jobs and Page 3 of the invoice reflects 4,394 pages in connection with 167 jobs. Thus, Plaintiff is requesting reimbursement for a total of 28,465 pages in connection with 657 separate printing jobs. This request is inflated and unreasonable because it appearsthat Plaintiff has merely attached the printout from his counsel’s in-house printing management software. There is no indication that these pages were for use as exhibits attrial. The entire joint exhibit list, which includesall exhibits of Plaintiff and all exhibits of defendants Jackson Tidus and Michael Tidus included 3,030 pagesin total. Even if that number were multiplied by three it only amounts to 9,090 pages, and that also assumes every single exhibit was entered into evidence to assist the trier of fact. Of course, all 3,030 pages of exhibits were not entered into evidence to assist the trier of fact. Plaintiff's own invoicesestablish that the cost being soughtis highly inflated and not capable of reduction based upon the manner in which the invoice was submitted. In fact, “the Legislature has expressly stated how many copies may be included as recoverable costs; and,in [the Court of Appeal’s] view, the trial court has no discretion under section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(4), to permit recovery for additional copies even if the prevailing party is able to demonstrate those copies were reasonably necessary to the conduct 11 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF'S COSTS2391003 tidus motion to tax costs(2024334.1).docx N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 78 8- 95 00 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 50 1- 03 28 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of the litigation.” (Seever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App .4th 1550, 1559.) Plaintiff’s failure to even establish that these copies were made for exhibit use at trial is fatal to the request. Plaintiff's request for $4,727.84 must be taxed and reduced to the amount of $458.09. VII. THE COURT MUST TAX ITEMS 16: OTHER Item 16 of the Memo of Costs seeks a total of $86,326.86 broken down by categories A through W, as identified on Attachment 16(a) of the Memo of Costs. The Court must tax Plaintiffs Memo of Costs for each ofthe items identified below reducing the allowable recovery from $86,326.86 to $432.24. A. Courtesy Copies to Department Plaintiff seeks $2,653.07 in costs for delivering courtesy copies of pleadings to the Court. These costs are not recoverable as the Court did not order the parties to deliver courtesy copies to the Court and these costs were not reasonably necessary to the litigation. “[S]ection 1033.5, enacted in 1986, codified existing case law and set forth the items of costs which may or may not be recoverable in a civil action. [Citation.]” (Van De Kamp v. Gumbiner (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1260, 1291.) An item notspecifically allowable under subdivision (a) nor prohibited under subdivision (b) may nevertheless be recoverable in the discretion of the court if “reasonably necessary to the conduct ofthe litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” (Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5, subd. (¢)(2).) Here, the very nature of the expense, courtesy copies, establishes that the costs were incurred as a matter of convenience. Providing a courtesy copy ofa pleading to this Court was not reasonably necessary to the litigation for the obvious reason that any pleading filed in this case was reviewed by this Court, and would have been reviewed by this Court regardless of whether or not a courtesy copy had been filed. C.C.P. section 1033.5 is crystal clear with respect to what types of fees associated with filing motions are subject to reimbursement, and courtesy copies do not fall within the grasp of the statute. To the extent that courtesy copies werefiled due to a last minute filing or other inexcusable delay on the part ofthe Plaintiff,it is clear that said cost was not reasonably or necessarily incurred to the conduct ofthe litigation and the amountof $2,653.07 must be stricken in its entirety. 12 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF'S COSTS2391003 tidus motion to tax costs(2024334.1).docx N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E-K. Trial Transcripts Plaintiff seeks a total of $8,969.99 in trial transcripts from both the mistrial and the trial which occurred. Pursuant to C.C.P. section 1033.5(b)(5) these costs are specifically excluded by statute as they were not ordered by the Court and there is no basis for which Plaintiff can recover this cost, nor is there any discretion for this Court to award the cost. (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 774; See Rose v. Hertz Corp. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d Supp. 6, 11; Parker v. City ofLos Angeles (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 556, 566; Strickland v. Becks (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d Supp. 18, 20.) Accordingly, the amount of $8,969.99 must be stricken in its entirety. Li VWM Analytics Plaintiff seeks $56,832.02 for fees paid to his expert witness. These costs are specifically excluded pursuant to C.C.P. section 1033.5(b)(1) and the Court lacks discretion to award the cost sought by Plaintiff. (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 817.) Plaintiff's reliance upon Thrifty Payless, Inc.v. Mariners Mile Gateway, LLC (2010) 185 Cal.App. 4th 1050, 1065 is unavailing. Plaintiff attempts to putat issue the Shareholder Agreement of 1993 (Trial Exhibit 2), a document to which Plaintiff was not a party at the time this action was filed, nor was it a contract at issue in this action as against Jackson Tidus. Plaintiff's Breach of Contract causes of action (the only claims he prevailed on) revolved around Trial Exhibit 11, the hypothetical Bonus Policy. Trial Exhibit 11 does not contain any provision allowing for the recovery of attorney’s fees or costs. However, even assuming arguendo that the Shareholder Agreement applied in this instance, paragraph 8.6, as relied upon by Plaintiff, contains a generic attorney’s fee and cost provision. Paragraph 8.6 is completely distinguishable from the contract addressed in Thrifty. In Thrify the contract provided that “the prevailing party is entitled to ‘reasonable expenses’ including attorney fees, ‘court costs, witness and expert fees.” (Thrifty, supra 185 Cal. App. 4th at 1065.) In finding that expert fees could be recovered as an allowable cost, the Court specifically pointed out that “[t]his does not mean-and [the court does] not hold-that expert witness fees are recoverable in every case where “costs” are merely mentioned in a contract.” (/d.) Again, even if paragraph 8.6 were the contractat issue in this action against Defendant Jackson Tidus, which it was not, it is clear that a general cost provision should be interpreted according to 13 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF'S COSTS2391003 tidus motion to tax costs(2024334.1).docx A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the established statutory definition. (Id. citing Arntz Contracting Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 464, 492.) In Thrifty, the parties specifically included the language “witness and expert fees” in the contract, and as a result ofthat, the court found that the parties were free to negotiate the contract as they wished and the cost was allowed. (/d.). Here, not only is the Shareholder Agreement not the contract at issue in this case as it pertains to Jackson Tidus, but paragraph 8.6 includes the very language which the Thrifty court found to be covered by C.C.P. section 1033.5(b)(1), and thus not recoverable. Here, no expert was ordered by the Court and as a result, the amount of $56,832.02 must be stricken in its entirety as the cost item is explicitly excluded under C.C.P. section 1033.5(b)(1)". M. Document Retrieval Minute Orders Plaintiff seeks the recovery of $60.00 for the retrieval of minute orders which were undoubtedly served by the Court and available for free. An item not specifically allowable under subdivision (a) nor prohibited under subdivision (b) may nevertheless be recoverable in the discretion ofthe court if “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” (C.C.P.§ 1033.5, subd. (c)(2).). Here, obtaining minute orders which Plaintiff was served with by this Court at no charge, is not a reasonable or necessary cost and the entire amount of $60.00 should bestricken by the Court. 0. Berkley Research (Expert Depo Fees) Plaintiff seeks the recovery of $1,636.25 which represents the fee charged by Peter Wrobel, the expert witness of Jackson Tidus at his deposition. As noted above, expert witness fees are expressly excluded pursuant to C.C.P. section 1033.5(b)(1). Plaintiff appropriately concedes that this fee does not fall within C.C.P. section 1033.5(a)(3) as said fee is not included in item 4 of the Memo of Costs. Nonetheless, and out of an abundance of caution, Jackson Tidus must point out that fees paid to an expert are not identified as an allowable cost under C.C.P. section I The invoice attached as Exhibit I, Page 40 is also entirely inaccurate. Plaintiff seeks the recovery of $56,832.02, yet the amount due pursuantto the invoice is $44,702.77. Additionally, the invoice includes a total of $1,498.70 in finance charges because Plaintiff has obviously not paid his expert witness for the work provided. “A [costs] request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstances permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether.” (Serrano, supra, 32 Cal.3d at 635; Meister v. Regents ofthe University ofCalifornia, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at 455 [request “unreasonably inflated,” no award affirmed]. 14 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF'S COSTS2391003 tidus motion to tax costs(2024334.1).docx N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1033.5(a)(3), and in fact must be ordered by the court to be recoverable. (Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 74.) Accordingly, the entire amount of $1,636.25 must be stricken as it the cost is prohibited by statute. P-T. Flight, Car Rental, Taxi and Hotel Costs Plaintiff seeks the recovery of $10,874.01 in costs associated with his hotel, car rental, taxi usage and airline tickets. These costs do not fall within an allowable cost item pursuant to C.C.P. section 1033.5. The only travel expenses authorized by section 1033.5 are those to attend depositions. (C.C.P. § 1033.5, subd. (a)(3).) Case law explains that travel expenses fortrial are not “costs” within the meaning of that term as used by C.C.P. sections 1032 and 1033.5. In Ladas, the court found the only travel expenses allowed are those associated with depositions. (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal. App. 4th at 775. In interpreting section 1033.5, the Ladas court concluded that because attorney travel expenses were mentioned in section 1033.5 for deposition, those were the only travel expenses the court had discretion to allow. (/d.) Other travel expenses associated with the case were not allowed. (/d.) Plaintiff is neither an attorney, nor did he attend any depositions other than his own, and is not entitled to recover any travel related expenses. Here, Plaintiff's request for $10,874.01 is statutorily prohibited. Even assuming it was not prohibited, the cost was not reasonably necessary to conduct the litigation, but rather a routine expense incurred as a result ofthe fact that Plaintiff resides outside of California. The fact that Plaintiff resides out ofstate may have madethis forum less convenient for him to litigate in, but him traveling back and forth from Florida to California at his convenience was not reasonably necessary to effectuate the litigation. Even if Plaintiff were to argue that he was required to attend trial (which he was not), it would only establish that the expense wasroutine as a result of the litigation, and not recoverable. (/d.) Accordingly, the entire amount of $10,874.01 must be stricken as a prohibited cost. U. Copy Charges Plaintiff seeks the recovery of $3,183.60 in copy charges. Identified in Exhibit I pages 98 through 102 is the description of copy charges incurred. Plaintiff is requesting reimbursement of copiesof pleadings, motions and declarations. None of these copy charges are authorized as a 15 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF'S COSTS2391003 tidus motion to tax costs(2024334.1).docx N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 ~ N A n n B A W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 recoverable expense pursuant to C.C.P section 1033.5(a)(13). First, the self-generated ledger is hardly adequate evidence of an actual cost which was incurred. It appears that Plaintiff merely catalogued the copies he allegedly made during the course oflitigation and decided to charge fifteen cents per page. This evidence does notsatisfy Plaintiff’s burden upon the challenge raised herein. More importantly, C.C.P section 1033.5(a)(13) states that reimbursementis allowed for “models, the enlargements of exhibits and photocopies of exhibits, and the electronic presentation of exhibits, including costs of rental equipment and electronic formatting, may be allowed if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact. (C.C.P. § 1033.5, subd. (a)(13).) Here, the copy charges for pleadings, motions and declarations do not fall within this category and as such are expressly prohibited. Moreover, copying these documents was not reasonably necessary to conductthe litigation nor were these documents used to aid the trier of fact. Plaintiff chose to make copies of various documents at his convenience. Accordingly, this Court must strike the entire amount of $3,183.60. Vand W. Mileage and Parking Fees Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of $826.13 in mileage fees and $859.64 in parking fees, totaling $1,685.77. In Ladas the attorneys sought the identical costs, and the Court rejected the request because “the only travel expenses authorized by section 1033.5 are those to attend depositions.” (C.C.P. § 1033.5, subd. (a)(3).) Routine expenses for local travel by attorneys or other firm employees are not reasonably necessary to the conduct oflitigation.” (Ladas, supra, (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th at 775-776.) This Court must strike the total amount of $1,685.77. In total, the Category Otheris broken down as follows: A. Courtesy Copies to Department - $2,653.07 reduced to $0 E-K. Trial Transcripts - $8,969.99 reduced to $0 VWM Analytics - $56,832.02 reduced to $0 M. Document Retrieval Minute Orders - $60.00 reduced to $0 0. Berkley Research (Expert Depo Fees)- $1,636.25 reduced to $0 P-T. Flight, Car Rental, Taxi and Hotel Costs - $10,874.01 reduced to $0 16 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF’S COSTS2391003 tidus motion to tax costs(2024334.1).docx N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 TE LE PH ON E (8 18 ) 78 8- 95 00 FA CS IM IL E (8 18 ) 50 1- 03 28 = O O 0 0 N N O Y W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U. Copy Charges - $3,183.60 reduced to $0 Vand W. Mileage and Parking Fees - $1,685.77 reduced to $0 Total: $86,326.85 -- $85,894.71 equals $432.15 VIII. CONCLUSION Plaintiff seeks a total of $116,478.27. This amountis grossly inflated and should be denied its entirety based upon Plaintiff’s conduct. Alternatively, this Court is required to tax Plaintiffs Memo of Costs as follows: Item 1: Filing and Motion Fees: reduced from $2,735.00 to $2,555.00; Item 4: Deposition Costs: reduced from $13,592.54 to $11,119.35; Item 11: Court Reporter Fees as established by statute: reduced from $1,189.68 to $0 pending Plaintiff establishing burden of proof of allowable cost; [tem 12: Models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits: reduced from $4,727.84 to $458.09; and Item 16: Other, reduced from $86,326.86 to $432.15. TOTAL AMOUNT OF TAXED COSTS: $94,007.20 Total: $116,478.27 reduced to $22,470.98. Plaintiff is entitled to $22,470.98 in costs. DATED: November 30, 2018 CHAEL McCARTHY MARSHALL R. COLE Attorneys for Defendants JACKSON TIDUS(fka JACKSON DEMARCO TIDUS & PECKENPAUGH), AND MICHAEL L. TIDUS 17 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX PLAINTIFF'S COSTS2391003 tidus motion to tax costs(2024334.1).docx N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 3 0 0 , E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 8 1 8 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Encino, CA 91436-2300. On November 30, 2018, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANT JACKSON DEMARCO TIDUS & PECKENPAUGH’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE OR TO TAX PLAINTIFF’S COSTS upon the interested partiesin this action in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST £3) BY U.S. MAIL: am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with U.S.postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Encino, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion ofthe party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after day of deposit for mailing contained in affidavit. O BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I deposited this documentin the box or otherfacility located at 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Encino, CA 91436-2300 regularly maintained by Golden State Overnight Delivery Service, Inc., in an envelope designated by Golden State Overnight Delivery Service, Inc. with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the persons on whom itis to be served, for guaranteed next day delivery. O BY ELECTRONIC MAIL [to individual person(s)]: By electronically transm itting the document(s) listed aboveto the e-mail address(es) of the person(s) set forth on the at tached service list from the e-mail address kmorganella@nemecek-cole.com To my kn owledge, the transmission wasreported as completed and without error. See, California Rul es of Court, Rule 2.251. O BY FACSIMILE MACHINE: I caused the foregoing documentto be serv ed by facsimile transmission to each of the interested parties at the facsimile machine te lecopy number shown above. a BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused the delivery of such envelope by handto the offices of the addressee. Executed on November 30, 2018, at Encino, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the above is true and correct. ~~ KidiyMiaan lla KIMBERLY D. MORGANELLA proof(1653080.1).docx N E M E C E K & C O L E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1 6 2 5 5 V E N T U R A B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 30 0, E N C I N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 4 3 6 - 2 3 0 0 T E L E P H O N E (8 18 ) 7 8 8 - 9 5 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (8 18 ) 5 0 1 - 0 3 2 8 SERVICE LIST Attorneys for Plaintiff RYAN PATCH, ROGER FRANKS Edward P. Zappia, Esq. Gail E. Wise, Esq. THE ZAPPIA LAW FIRM One Pacific Plaza 7777 Center Avenue, Suite 625 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Tel: (213) 814-5550 / Fax (213) 814-5560 ezappia@zappialegal.com gwise@zappialegal.com Attorneys for Defendant MICHAEL TIDUS John Petrasich, Esq. Ronald Kohut, Esq. JACKSON TIDUS, A Law Corporation 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 752-8585 / Fax: (949) 752-0597 jpetrasich@jacksontidus.law rkohut@jacksontidus.law proof(1653080.1).docx Kim Morganella From: Sent: To: Subject: donotreply@occourts.org Thursday, November 29, 2018 9:57 AM Kim Morganella Superior Court of Orange County - Motion Reservation Request - CONFIRMATION Superior Court of California, County of Orange RESERVE A MOTION DATE Your reservation request has been CONFIRMED by the Superior Court. The hearing date and time below has been reserved. You will be asked to provide your reservation number to the court at a later date. MOVING PAPERS MUST BE E-FILED WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER COMPLETING THE ON-LINE RESERVATION. Failure to submit your moving papers within 24 hours will result in the automatic CANCELLATION of the reservation. NOTE: To EXPEDITE your MOTION filing place the appropriate Court Reservation number (e.g. 7XXXXXXX) on each Motion being submitted. Please do not reply to this email. Reservation Number: Hearing Date: Hearing Time: Department: Motion Type: Case Number: Case Title: Judicial Officer: Email: Date of Request: Time of Request: Transaction Number: 30-2014-00715089-CU-CO-CIC 72937543 March 26, 2019 1:30 PM C19 Motion to Tax Costs Patch vs. Jackson DeMarco Tidus & Peckenpaugh Hon. Walter Schwarm kmorganella@nemecek-cole.com November 29, 2018 9:55 AM 393392341 Superior Court of California = Conuty of Orange