Barbara Green vs. Windstone Addiction Centers, Inc.

Reply to Opposition

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.December 1, 2017

OO 0 ~~ O n nv pH Ww ND 10 11 12 13 14 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Kimberly S. Oberrecht [C.S.B. No. 190794] Carolyn A. Mush [C.S.B. No. 295192] HORTON, OBERRECHT, KIRKPATRICK & MARTHA ELECTRONICALLY FILED 101 W. Broadway, Suite 600 Superior Court of California, San Diego, California 92101 * Ei sng oF Bg (619) 232-1183; Fax (619) 696-5719 06/17/2019 a1 05:57:00 FM Clerk of the Superior Court Attorneys for Defendants, WINDSTONE ADDICTION CENTERS, IN Ev & Clerk. Deputy Clerk TREATMENT CENTER; HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. dba ANAHEIM LIGHTHOUSE (erroneously sued herein as HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. dba THE LIGHTHOUSE and ANAHEIM LIGHTHOUSE); and MIRELA ELENA CASAPU SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER BARBARA GREEN, individually and as successor) CASE NO. 30-2017-00958866-CU-PO- in interest to the Estate of decedent Jeffrey Warren ) CJC Green; GARRY GREEN, individually; JOSEPH ) GREEN, individually, ) DEFENDANT HEALTHCARE ) SERVICES, INC. dba ANAHEIM Plaintiffs, ) LIGHTHOUSE’S REPLY TO ) PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO VS. ) MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX ) COSTS WINDSTONE ADDICTION CENTERS, INC., dba) LIGHTHOUSE TREATMENT CENTER; Date: June 24, 2019 HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. dba THE Time: 9:00 a.m. LIGHTHOUSE; ANAHEIM LIGHTHOUSE, a Dept. CX103 business entity of unknown formation; MICHAEL Judge: Hon. Ronald L. Bauer ) ) : BISHARA, M.D. an Individual; DR. PREET ) JONEJA, an Individual; MIRELA ELENA ) CASAPU, an Individual; and DOES 1 to 50, ) ) ) ) Defendants. I. PLAINTIFFS’ CCP SECTION 998 OFFER IS INVALID & PENALTIES SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED AGAINST DEFENDANT Plaintiff Barbara Green’s Opposition seems to argue that a CCP section 998 offer is valid as long as it is “reasonable” in amount, particularly when it is compared to the judgment ultimately recovered. This is an incorrect premise as, despite how “reasonable” the actual amount requested by a 998 offer may be, the 998 can be invalid for various reasons. Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS G:\CLIENTS\4796\Post-Trial\Motion to Tax Costs - HCS dba Anaheim Lighthouse\REPLYto Motion to Tax Costs.wpd OO 0 NN A A Wn Bx W N N O N N N N N N N N e m e a r d em e m 4 p e d p m pe a © NN O Y i B R A W N = O W N O Y W N m o regarding reasonability is not persuasive. Here, Plaintiffs’ C.C.P. § 998 offer in the amount of $1,999,999 was served on January 14, 2019 on behalf of three Plaintiffs: Barbara Green, Garry Green, and Joe Green (“Plaintiffs’ 998"). Although Plaintiff’s Opposition lays out the causes of action of the Complaint, it does not specify that the various causes of action were not claimed equally, or at all, by each Plaintiff. On the contrary, Plaintiffs were not unified or on equal ground. They claimed distinct causes of action as follows: . (1) Negligence/Wrongful Death by Plaintiff Barbara; . (2) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention by Plaintiff Barbara; . 3) Legh dent Selection of Independent Contractor(s) by Plaintiff Barbara; . (4) Professional Negligence/Wrongful Death by Plaintiff Barbara; . (5) Breach of Contract by Plaintiff Garry; . (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by all Plaintiffs; . (7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress by all Plaintiffs; . (8) Fraud--Intentional Misrepresentation by all Plaintiffs; and . (9) Fraud--Negligent Misrepresentation by all Plaintiffs. The value of Plaintiffs’ 998 for all the claims perpetuated by the three Plaintiffs was based on Defendants’ insurance policy limits. At trial, Plaintiff's counsel asked the Jury to award $20,000,000 just to Plaintiff Barbara on her wrongful death claim, as all other claims, including all those claimed by Plaintiffs Garry and Joe, had been dismissed pursuant to Motions for Non-Suit. The Jury returned a verdict of $2,535,000 for Plaintiff Barbara. The verdict is in fact unreasonable/excessive, and is subject to this court’s discretion by virtue of Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial. The above said, Plaintiffs’ 998 is invalid, and thus, 998 penalties should not be imposed for Defendant’s failure to accept it, because it was made jointly with no allocation to each Plaintiff. Hurlbut v. Sonora Community Hospital (1989) 207 Cal. App.3d 388, 410. Plaintiff’s Opposition relies on one recent appellate court decision, Gonzalez v. Lew (2018) 20 Cal. App.5th 155, to defend its position that the joint 998 offer from three distinct plaintiffs in this case was valid. It is important to note that Gonzalez did not overturn Hurlbut. Gonzalez in fact acknowledged that courts have held 998 offers invalid where an unallocated joint settlement offer is made by multiple parties, including Hurlbut and Gilman v. Beverly California Corp. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 121. Gonzalez, supra, 20 Cal. App.5th at 164. DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS G:\CLIENTS\4796\Post-Trial\Moticn to Tax Costs - HCS dba Anaheim Lighthouse\REPLY ko Motion to Tax Costs.wpd Ww OO 0 J O N Wn BA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 Plaintiff's argument seems to be based on the contention that Hurlbut is not good law and that it was decided on an issue irrelevant to this case, a strict holding that a CCP 998 offer with a structured settlement formula cannot be a valid offer. This is incorrect, as Hurlbut held that where joint 998 offers are made by plaintiffs whose “interests were not identical,” and “there was no single, indivisible injury to evaluate for settlement purposes,” the offers are invalid. Hurlbut, supra,207 Cal.App.3d 388 at 410. Specifically, the Hurlbut court stated: To consider plaintiffs’ joint settlement offer as valid would deprive defendant of the opportunity to evaluate the likelihood of each party receiving a more favorable verdict at trial. Such an offer makes it impossible to make such a determination after verdict. We hold that the joint settlement offer presented by plaintiffs was not a valid settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and the order after judgment directing defendant to pay to plaintiffs certain expert witness fees must be reversed. Hurlbut, supra,207 Cal. App.3d 388 at 410 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Gilman, another case where multiple heirs sued a skilled nursing facility following decedent’s death, the court followed Hurlbut, taking the view that the heirs had individual, rather than indivisible, claims. Gilman, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at 125-126. Moreover, the instant action is distinguishable from Gonzalez. Gonzalez involved only wrongful death actions, as two people had perished in a fire. Plaintiffs consisted of heirs for both decedents. At issue in wrongful death actions is the loss suffered by each Plaintiff by reason of a decedent’s death. Gilman. supra, 231 Cal. App.3d at 126, citing Cross v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 690, 692. Wrongful death suits require evaluating damages arising from the decedent's death to each plaintiff, but do no require evaluating entirely separate claims and the prospect of recovering any damages associated with them. On the contrary, the instant action presented a distinct and unique scenario. in that Defendant was presented with Plaintiffs’ 998 and had to consider and evaluate differing theories of recovery and harm on various causes of action perpetuated by different Plaintiffs. Only Plaintiff Barbara had a wrongful death claim.whereas Plaintiffs Garry and Joe had causes of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraud and breach of contract. Defendant could not evaluate the likelihood of each party receiving a more favorable verdict at trial. This argument is supported by the fact that Defendant was able to defeat all claims brought by two of the Plaintiffs, Garry and Joe, by Motions for Nonsuit. As such, Plaintiffs’ 998 was not a valid settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and no DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS G:\CLIENTS\4796\Post-Trial\Motion to Tax Costs - HCS dba Anaheim Lighthouse\REPLYAo Motlen to Tax Costs.wpd Oo © ~~ O Y nn BA W N ee N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e a b a p m e d e d p m C C ~ ~ ] O n nn BR W N = O O 0 0 N N hh R W NN = O penalties should be imposed on Defendant. II. COSTS FOR EXPERT FEES IN ITEM 8 SHOULD BE TAXED Under C.C.P. § 998(d), “If an offer made by a plaintiffs not accepted and the defendant fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award in any action or proceeding..., the court or arbitrator, in its discretion, may require the defendant to pay a reasonable sum to cover postoffer costs of the services of expert witnesses..., actually incurred and reasonably necessary in either... preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the plaintiff.” (Emphasis added). In the event this Court finds that Plaintiffs’998 is valid, Defendant also contests the amount of expert fees claimed on several bases. First, the rate of expert Michel Sucher, MD was $1,100 as an expert in addiction medicine. Defendant asserts that this is an excessive expert rate and requests the court to tax this rate based on the ordinary and customary fees charged by similar experts for similar services within the relevant community. See Government Code Section 68092.5(c). Dr. Matthew Torrington is also an expert in addiction medicine, and was designated as such. His hourly rate was $750. Moreover, Dr. Mace Beckson practices in addiction medicine, suicidology, and is a psychiatrist, and his hourly rate was $690. Given Dr. Sucher’s specialty and the community in which he works, his hourly fee is too high, especially when comparing the same to other doctors in the same specialty who work in a similar community. Moreover, given the supporting documents produced along with Plaintiff's Opposition, Plaintiff is not entitled to claim all the costs generated by Dr. Sucher that are claimed in her Memorandum of Costs because about half was incurred prior to service of Plaintiffs’ 998. After January 14, 2019, Dr. Sucher’s work amounts to $34,132.25. As such, the costs claimed for Dr. Sucher should be taxed by $33.483, because these costs were incurred prior to service of Plaintiffs’ 998. Beyond this, his rate was excessive. He worked 33.9 hours after Plaintiffs’ 998 was served. Using the rate of Dr. Torrington, the entire amount claimed for Dr. Sucher’s work should be reduced to $25.425. With respect to Mr. Lewis, he was a duplicative expert who was retained and designated in areas that overlapped with Dr. Sucher. Notably they were designated as follows: DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS G:\CLIENTS\4796\Post-Trial\Motion to Tax Costs - HCS dba Anaheim Lighthouse\REPLYAo Motion to Tax Costs.wpd S H O W N Oo 0 3 O v Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . Dr. Sucher will testify regarding the standard of care for residential rehabilitation detoxification facilities, the standard of care for the medical doctors in this case, any and all actions or failures to act by the medical doctors involved in this case, medication prescriptions and protocols for the Decedent Jeffrey Green, the actions or failures to act by the facilities and their employees involved in this case, liability of the Defendants, standard of care, causation, damages, and all other topics touched upon by his expertise. . . . . Mr. Lewis will testify regarding the policies and procedures of the facility Defendants, any and all deficiencies of the Defendants regarding the policies and procedures for residential detoxification facilities, the certifications and licenses held by the Defendants, State and Federal regulations, custom and practice within the community, standard of care. causation. damages, and all other topics touched upon by his expertise. . . . Moreover, based on Plaintiff’s Opposition, the matters that Mr. Lewis assisted Plaintiff’s counsel with were not issues or arguments argued at trial. In this regard, the costs incurred for the utilization of Mr. Lewis were not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, in contravention of CCP Section 1033.5(c)(2) and should be stricken. If his costs are not entirely stricken, they should be taxed. Based on the documents produced by Plaintiff, it appears that Christopher Lewis incurred $10,168.08, not the alleged $18,749.33 claimed in Plaintiffs Memorandum of Costs. Thus. his fees should be taxed by $8.581. Arguably, his fees should be reduced even further because his invoices do not identify when they were incurred, and were likely incurred prior to service of Plaintiffs’ 998. Finally, Christopher Lewis' invoices from January 21 and January 28,2019, have a combined 36.5 hours for legal services, which is described as providing "various legal services pertaining to California Code of Regulations, Title 9; California Alcohol & Drug Certification Standards; and expert witness." These 36.5 hours amount to $8,032.50. Given this basic description of services, it appears Mr. Lewis was conducting investigation. Under CCP Section 1033.5(b)(2), "[i]nvestigation expenses in preparing the case for trial" are expressly, not allowable as costs. In Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, the court held expenses incurred for investigation expenses, including legal research whether by computer or otherwise, were not statutorily permissible. If anything. Plaintiff should only be permitted to recover $2,135.58 for Mr. Lewis’ expert costs. 1 [117 DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS G:\CLIENTS\4796\Post-Trial\Motion to Tax Costs - RCS dba Anahelm Lighthouse\REPLY 10 Motion to Tax Costs.wpd OO 00 N N bh W N DN N N RN N N N N N Rm m m e d p d e m a e m e a pe 00 3 A BR A L N Re O W E N N BR W R N e m III. PLAINTIFF’S FILING FEES WERE NOT REASONABLY INCURRED While C.C.P. § 1033.5 allows a prevailing party at trial to recover “filing fees,” CCP section 1033.5(c)(2) provides that “allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” California courts have held that “because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized.” Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th at 774. Messenger fees to file documents or to transport exhibits to and from court should not be recovered. These fees are not necessarily incurred, but are incurred out of convenience. Given that this trial was continued from January 2019 to March 2019, there was ample time for Plaintiff to adequately prepare all motions in limine, exhibits, videos and documents for trial without needing to file motions in limine or oppositions to the same in a piecemeal fashion, and without needing to hire messenger services, where mail or personal filing could have been utilized. Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 132. Looking at the invoices plaintiff produced, plaintiff sent the trial books and exhibits to the court on three different occasions, on February 21 (hot delivery), 22 (hot delivery), and March 7, 2019 (exclusive delivery). The total combined cost of these 3 separate messenger fees was $637.90. This is an excessive amount when discussing transporting trial exhibits which are not even technically filings. There is also an unspecified “proof of service” e-filing fee from March 1, 2018, which should be taxed because it does not correlate to any filed motion. Once again, the fees associated with the December 10, 2018 efiling of motion to compel deposition of Jesse Del Val were unnecessary and cost $72.25, which had an “advanced court fee to complete assignment” and should be removed. The court efiling for the ex parte application and the courtesy copy fee (which included an extra fee because it was over 50 pages), put together both cost an additional $245.25. Adding the efiled notice of ruling, the total cost of that ex parte application was $329.75, which should be removed entirely as it was not necessarily incurred. Moreover, there is no state required filing fees on Motions in Limine. The trial documents, trial books and exhibit books were not filed; they are not reflected on the action’s register of actions. DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS G:\CLIENTS\4796\Post-Trial\Motion to Tax Costs - HCS dba Anaheim Lighthouse\REPLYXo Motion to Tax Costs.wpd No OO «© ~~ O h nh Ww 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7 28 One of the entries for filing of exhibit books on 3/15/19 is even more peculiar, as it was during the middle week of trial, and such supposed filing was not necessitated by anything that occurred during trial. Therefore, the various messenger and other unknown fees which are reflected in the entries pertaining to filings of motions in limine and oppositions thereto as well as trial documents, trial books and exhibit books, should be taxed as requested in Defendant’s moving papers. IV. PLAINTIFE’S DEPOSITION COSTS WERE NOT REASONABLY INCURRED C.C.P. § 1032(3)(a) states “taking, video recording, and transcribing necessary depositions, including an original and one copy of those taken by the claimant and one copy of depositions taken by the party against whom costs are allowed.” As will be discussed in detail below, numerous depositions taken by Plaintiff in this case were not necessary and, in violation of C.C.P. § 1033.5(c)(2) and (3), were not reasonable in amount. Necessity for expenditures such as taking of depositions not used at trial is always a question for trial judge in determining costs.” Hoge v. Lava Cap Gold Mining Corporation, (1938) 55 Cal.App.2d 176. A concerning aspect found in the invoices attached to Exhibit 4 of Plaintiff’s Opposition are costs for “rushed” syncing of video deposition transcripts. Here are the rushed synced video transcripts which were not reasonably incurred: . Bernard Finks 9/21/18, ordered 3/1/19, totaling $425.00. . Elena Casapu 11/2018, ordered 3/1/19, totaling $815.00 (6 copies). . Preet Joneja 11/16/2018, ordered 3/1/19 totaling $457.50. . Laura Kurz, 9/18/2018, ordered 3/1/19 totaling $620.00. . Carmen Perez 10/29/18 ordered 3/1/19 totaling $717.50. . Chuck Richardson 11/9/2018 ordered 3/1/19 costing $262.50. . Chuck Richardson 9/19/2018 ordered 3/1/19 costing $782.50. . Tim Salyer 9/20/18, ordered 3/1/19 costing $555. . Tim Salyer 10/30/2018 2/19/19 and costing $425. Total: $5,060 This entire amount should be stricken by the Court. DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS G:\CLIENTS\4756\Post-Trial\Motion to Tax Costs - HCS dba Anaheim Lighthouse\RerLYQo Mation to Tax Costs.wpd O O 0 N Y RA W N D D N R N N N N N r m e m e a em p m e a b a e m e d e m © N Y hh B W = O Y e N O Y DR W N e m o O There are other unreasonable and unnecessary deposition costs claimed by Plaintiff. Several depositions were cancelled, or at the very least known to not be going forward, by Plaintiff. The deposition of David Fairweather, in fact cancelled by Plaintiff just hours prior, totaled $2,273.91. This includes a staggering cancellation fee for a conference room costing $1,800. These excessive costs were incurred due to Plaintiff’s haphazard and unilateral planning and should not be recovered. With respect to the individuals who were served and did not confirm appearance for their depositions, such as Gia Bothwell, Tyler Neil and Andrew Jonas, Plaintiff should not be able to recover those costs either, as they were intentionally and unilaterally incurred. $629.80 in cancellation fees for the court reporter and videographer are claimed by Plaintiff for Gia Bothwell. Non-appearance fees for reporter and videographer taken for Andrew Jonas on December 17, 2018 cost $631.52. Elena Casapu’s non-appearance incurred a $230.25 fee for the court reporter at the September deposition which did not go forward, in addition to a $187.25 appearance fee for the videographer, totaling $417.50. Fees for Tyler Neil’s non-appearance totaled $629.36. These costs should all be taxed as they did not produce information that was utilized at trial. Total: $3,950.57 In addition, there were several unnecessarily expedited deposition transcripts. Jesse Del Val’s deposition transcript from January 17, 2019 was expedited costing an additional $444.20, which should be taxed. An expedited, overnight order for the video transcript for Mace Beckson, MD from January 22,2019 cost $1,076.32, which is excessive and unreasonable. The deposition transcript of Tanya Sherrell Adams, taken on December 19, 2018, was expedited, costing $612.84 which should be taxed as it is unreasonable. The expedited transcript for Zsamee Moor’s deposition, taken on December 19, 2018, cost $370.22, which should be taxed. Itis clear that Plaintiff expedited these transcripts because she did not order them in a timely manner, and believed them necessary for trial, thereby incurring much larger costs than if she had ordered them in a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, these costs should be removed entirely. Total: $3,132.94 DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS G:\CLIENTS\4796\Post-Trial\Motion to Tax Costs ~ HCS dba Anaheim Lighthouse\REPLY Ao Motion to Tax Costs.wpd OO 0 N N N B R A W N N N R N N N N N N N mm m d a e e e d a pe t pe d p t pe 0 NN A Y nN A W R N ee O W N Y RE W R N - = o Moreover, as Plaintiffs’ 998 is invalid, Plaintiff should not be able to recover the fees expended to take the depositions of Mace Beckson MD or Dr. Torrington, totaling $6,582. Plaintiff also failed to provide any documentation supporting the costs claimed for deposition related travel, which are claimed to amount to $1,545.86. As such, this amount should be taxed in its entirety. VY PLAINTIFE’S SERVICE COSTS WERE NOT REASONABLY INCURRED C.C.P. § 1032(4)(B) states “if service is by a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, the recoverable cost is the amount actually incurred in effecting service, including, but not limited to, a stakeout or other means employed in locating the person to be served, unless those charges are successfully challenged by a party to the action.” Plaintiff produces invoices showing “skip traces” for Tyler Neil, Kelly Cody, and Corey Rada costing $750 total. These costs should be taxed, as they are unreasonable and unnecessary and amount to investigation costs. In addition, there are “Witness fees advanced to complete assignment” charges on invoices for personally serving Andy Torres, Officer P. Cromer, and Ryan Crosby on March 13, 2019. These costs, in excess of $970.00, are not explained and should therefore be stricken. Once again, the same “witness fees advanced to complete assignment” is charged on receipts for personally serving Officer J. Gallacher, costing $725.00. Although Plaintiff appears to have hired registered process servers to serve these officers, several invoices have “additional address” charges to these service costs. The service invoice for Officer Gallacher has a $300.00 charge for this, as does the invoice for service on Officers Cromer and Crosby, for $210.00. These appear excessive on their face given these officers were all served at their places of employment, and therefore should be taxed. As discussed previously, overnight messenger fees and other unnecessary costs to serve subpoenas for depositions or trial are within the discretion of the Court, and for this trial there was no legitimate reason that any of these service of process costs should be this high. Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 132. DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS G:\CLIENTS\4796\Post-Trial\Motion to Tax Casts - HCS dba Anaheim Ughthouse\REPLYRo Motion to Tax Costs.wpd OO ® N Y nn BR W N N N N N N N N N N ke r a e m a e m e m em e a 0 NN A A B R A W N = O W E N Y RA W R N mm VIL COSTS FOR THE MODELS, BLOWUPS AND PHOTOCOPIES OF EXHIBITS IN ITEM NO. 11 SHOULD BE TAXED Plaintiff only submitted invoices supporting costs incurred in the amount of $4,419.63. As such, the invoices do not support the claim for costs in the amount of $5,743.61 in the Memorandum of Costs. Thus, the costs claimed for models, blowups and photocopies should be taxed by $1,323.98. VII. PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST Because Plaintiffs’ CCP Section 998 Offer was invalid, Plaintiff is not entitled to interest under CCP Section 3291. VIII. CONCLUSION In the event that the Court determines that Plaintiff’s 998 is invalid, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike $205,761.20 from Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs, as follows: . Item No. 1 Filing and motion fees $1,540.65 . Item No. 4 Deposition Costs $31,398.44 . Item No. 5 Service of Process $2,955 . Item No. 8b Expert Fees $86,364.58 . Item No. 11 Costs for models and blow up $1,323.98 . Item No. 11 Costs for electronic data storage and support $4,392.31 . Item No. 13 Post-Judgment interest $77,786.24 TOTAL $205,761.20 In the event the Court determines that Plaintiffs’ 998 is valid, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike $100,414.38 from Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs, as follows: . Item No. 1 Filing and motion fees $1,540.65 . Item No. 4 Deposition Costs $31,398.44 . Item No. 5 Service of Process $2,955 DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS G:\CLIENTS\4796\Post-Trial\Motion to Tax Costs - HCS dba Anaheim Lighthouse\REPLYZo Motion to Tax Costs.wpd OO o o 3 O N nn D W N e e J NO J No N L O L 1 1 T N T C C C C Y . Item No. 8b . Item No. 11 . Item No. 11 Dated: June 17,2019 Expert Fees $58,804 Costs for models and blow up $1,323.98 Costs for electronic data storage and support $4,392.31 TOTAL $100,414.38 HORTON, OBERRECHT, KIRKPATRICK & MARTHA Kimberly S”Oberrecht, Carolyn A. Mush, Attorneys for Defendants, WINDSTONE ADDICTION CENTERS, INC. dba LIGHTHOUSE TREATMENT CENTER; HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. dba ANAHEIM LIGHTHOUSE (erroneously sued herein as HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. dba THE LIGHTHOUSE and ANAHEIM LIGHTHOUSE); and MIRELA ELENA CASAPU DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS G\CLIENTS\4796\Post-Trial\Motion to Tax Costs - HCS dba Anaheim Lighthouse\REPLY Q Motion to Tax Costs.wpd OO © ~~ O h On BA W N e e D N D N N N N N N N N N em m a e a r a e m f m e d e t pe d p m «0 N N B R A W N = O Y e N I R W = o Kimberly S. Oberrecht [C.S.B. No. 190794] Carolyn A. Mush [C.S.B. No. 295192] HORTON, OBERRECHT, KIRKPATRICK & MARTHA 101 W. Broadway, Suite 600 San Diego, California 92101 (619) 232-1183; Fax (619) 696-5719 Attorneys for Defendants, WINDSTONE ADDICTION CENTERS, INC. dba LIGHTHOUSE TREATMENT CENTER; HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. dba ANAHEIM LIGHTHOUSE (erroneously sued herein as HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. dba THE LIGHTHOUSE and ANAHEIM LIGHTHOUSE); and MIRELA ELENA CASAPU SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER BARBARA GREEN, individually and as successor CASE NO. 30-2017-00958866-CU-PO- in interest to the Estate of decedent Jeffrey Warren CJC Green; GARRY GREEN, individually; JOSEPH GREEN, individually, DECLARATION OF PROOF OF SERVICE Plaintiffs, Vs. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) : WINDSTONE ADDICTION CENTERS, INC.,a ) California Corporation dba ANAHEIM ) LIGHTHOUSE; DR. MICHAEL BISHARA, an ) individual; DR. PREET JONEJA, an Individual, ) MIRELA ELENA CASAPU, an Individual; and ~~) DOES 1 to 50, ) ) ) ) Defendants. I am employed in the County of San Diego, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 101 W. Broadway, Suite 600, San Diego, California 92101. On June 17, 2019, I served the following documents: DEFENDANT HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. dba LIGHTHOUSE TREATMENT CENTER’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS vy [17 111 DECLARATION OF PROOF OF SERVICE G:\CLIENTS\4796\Post-Trial\Motion to Tax Costs - HCS dba Anaheim lightiusdipanu O O 00 1 a n b W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Justin Strassburg, Esq. William R. Gilmore, Esq. Adam R. Lugo, Esq. STRASSBURG, GILMORE & WEI, LLP 1250 E. Walnut Street, Suite 136 Pasadena, CA 91106 (626) 683-9933; (626) 683-9944 Fax justin@sgwlawyers.com will@sgwlawyers.com adam@sgwlawyers.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs [X] BY MAIL: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons listed on the attached service list. I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. Iam employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at San Diego, California. [X] BY FAXTRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons listed on the attached service list. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission will be maintained with the original document in this office. [X] BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I caused the above-listed document(s) to be transmitted by electronic transmission, addressed to all parties appearing on the attached service list for the above- entitled case. The service transmission was reported as complete and a copy of the email receipt will be maintained with the original document in this office. [ ] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses in the attached service list. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. [1] BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused the documents to be personally served by providing them to a professional messenger service for personal service to the persons in the attached service list. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 17,2019. Patty Schaef 2 T DECLARATION OF PROOF OF SERVICE G:\CLIENTS\4796\Post-Trial\Motion te Tax Costs - HCS dba Anaheim Tr --