Motion_to_tax_costsMotionCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.November 17, 2015Electronically FILED by Supgfior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/08/2019 04:20 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Hung,Deputy Clerk 1 [| MICHAEL J. SEXTON, CA Bar No. 153435 michael.sexton @ogletreedeakins.com ALIS M. MOON, CA Bar No. 293897 alis.moon @ogletree.com OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: ~~ 714.800.7900 Facsimile: 714.754.1298 AN hn B W CHARLES L. THOMPSON, IV, CA Bar No. 139927 7 || charles.thompson @ogletreedeakins.com CARA F. BARRICK, CA Bar No. 303107 8 || cara.barrick @ogletree.com OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 9 || Steuart Tower One Market Plaza, Suite 1300 10 || San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415.536.3424 11 || Facsimile: 415.442.4870 12 || Attorneys for Defendant Home Depot U.S.A, Inc. 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 15 PATRICIA TILLOTSON, Case No. BC601497 16 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC.’S 17 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO vs. TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF 18 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN THE HOME DEPOT; HOME DEPOT USA, SUPPORT THEREOF 19 |[INC.; STEPHEN CONLEY; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Date: July 30, 2019 20 Time: 8:45 a.m. Defendant. Dept.: 14 x1 RESERVATION ID 239043909382 22 [Assigned for All Purposes to the Honorable Terry A. Green, Department 14] 23 Action Filed: November 17, 2015 24 Trial Date: November 5, 2018 25 26 27 28 1 DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC.”S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN hn B W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on July 30, 2019 at 8:45 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 14 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc. (“Defendant”) will and hereby does move the Court, pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1700(b) and California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032 and 1033.5, for an order taxing the costs claimed by Plaintiff Patricia Tillotson (“Plaintiff”) in this matter and striking from Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs all improper, unnecessary, duplicative, and unreasonable costs as described in detail in Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities. This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto; the Declaration of Alis Moon concurrently filed herewith; the evidence presented at trial; rulings of this Court before and during trial; all pleadings, papers and records in this action; and such other oral and documentary evidence as may be presented with respect to the hearing of this matter. DATED: January 8, 2019 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 2 - Charles L. Thompson, IV Michael J. Sexton Cara F. Barrick Alis M. Moon Attorneys for Defendant Home Depot U.S.A, Inc. 2 DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC.”S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN hn B W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IL. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION canis sven an sn suas swans os sian vss ss is 5685550 05555 585558553 $455555 54 Samad LEGAL STANDARD AND BURDEN OF PROOF .........ccccccoveinieeneannen. PLAINTIFF'S COSTS MEMO INCLUDES NUMEROUS ITEMS THAT ARE DISALLOWED, NOT REASONABLY NECESSARY, AND/OR UNREASONABLE IN AMOUNT. ....cooiiiiiiitiiiene cece cece A. Category 4 = DepOSION COSES. uuu srssssass srsssssansss sass sxsnassssvnssass sass sss B. Category 5 - Service of Process .........ccoveevieeieenceiniienicciccecneenne GC: 8211500 EE 10 1 (oo J Rc FR p--------------- 1. EXpert Witness fees .......ccvvrrriinieeiieiiiniienie cece Ze Nonexpert WItHESE [E88 cue ssn sumanss svmsnon ssansnsss svsassn sn zerauass 3. Category 9 - Court-ordered transcripts ........ccceeeceervveerunennn 4. Category 11 - Court reporter fees as established by statute 5. Category 16 - Other ........cccoveevieeieeiiiniiene cece CONCLUSION i zunssusn avsanan sn ssmanss sss os sis vss ss is 568550 2550555 525358553 $458555 54 KarEE#3 3 es 2 DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC.”S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN hn B W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Federal Cases Perona v. Time Warner Cable (C.D. Cal. 2016) 2016 WL 8941101 ..oeeeuiiieeiiie cies eee eee eevee eves saves sabe ee srae ee sare ee esae eens 4 State Cases Davis v. KGO-T. V. Inc. CLOOBY 17 TREN: THEIL AB 5505 ss ssc rss 55 5 A SS 5 SARS BS 85.55 1 Hsu v. Semiconductor Systems, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal. APP. Ath 1330 ..cueeeeiieiieeiee e e eters siete ee saa sebe eee e e e saae eens 3 Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles, (Cal. Super. Sep. 03, 2010) 2010 WL 9044383 ......oooiiieeie eters eee see 5 Ladas v. California State Auto. Ass'n (1993) 19 Cal APP. Ath TOL ..oneeieeieeee eee eee eee steer ee sbeebs sabe e sees see eaee eens 2 Melnyk v. Robledo CLI76) 6A. Tals APD: TU BILE 55.50 sumamsn cnssn on snosnss somansn sown 555555515 5555557 S555055.50 55555508 S55555738 SATRERS S555 005555 2 Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal. APP. Ath 111 .ocueiiiiiie cece eerste sates eee tee sae sabe enaeas 2,3 Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal. APP. Ath 238... e e atest este sabe sees bee she sabes ne esses saae eens 1 Ripley v. Pappadopoulos (1994) 23 Cal. APP. 4th TOL6....coeieeiieieeeee ee ee ee st a sabe ene t e saan 7 Sanchez v. Bay Shore Med. Group C1999) 75 Cals APD: AT DAG 5x 50 sumansn cnssn on smosnss somansn sows 055555515 55555575 555055.50. 35555508 S55555738 SATRERS S555 005555 1 State Statutes Cal. CV. Proc. Code § 1032 eit eee esterases eater esas sete tesa es esse ease seas esse eesessannnas 1 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1033.5 coisas esas teeta se esse sete basses es eese seas eseseesessannnes 1 Cal. Civ. Poe. Code: § TO33.500)(3) suse ammsssn sn ssmsnss susan so nmmsnsn suman io 005 050s 5 500555 505555505 5055550 S555305 53 5455 2 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1033.5(D) coooeuiriiiieieieeiciieie eee cece ee eects sees ssere ae ae sees en ananrea aeae es 7 Cal. Civ. Prog, Code § T0350. SUBYCT) wuss smsss.onmssnss saris moss assess 550555 255555558 0505505 575555555 A550 055550 85.5555 3 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1033.5(D)(3) .uuuritiiiiiiieiiiiiiieee ieee eects eee eeete reese ee eeeeetarbeae ease seen sararreaeeeaes 7 Cal. Civ. Prog, Code § 1035. SUBYCE) cvs smsss.onmssnss sss srnis miss assess 555555 2555055558 0505505 575155555 A555 05555 85.5955 6 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1033.5(C) uuurreiiiuiieieeiiieeeeiiieeeeesitee ee erae se esta a essaaeae as sssaae as snsaeae nssseessssnnes 1,3 Cal. Civ. Poe. Code § 1033.50 )02) suse aumsssn.ssssmmus susan so sumsnsn suman so mms sme 5 5505s 5055555 00 5055550 5555305 53 5655 6 DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC.”S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN hn B W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cal. Gov’t. Code § 12965(b) Cal. Gov’t. Code § 68093..... 5 DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC.”S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN hn B W 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 Plaintiff Patricia Tillotson (“Plaintiff”) seeks to recover costs from Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc. (“Defendant”) that are improper, unnecessary, duplicative, unreasonable, and/or that California law expressly disallows. Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs (“Cost Memo”) seeks thousands of dollars in expert and witness fees for people who neither party deposed, did not testify, or whom the Court expressly excluded from testifying. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Cost Memo includes over five thousand dollars for postage/delivery costs that the statute expressly disallows. The Cost Memo also includes numerous entries that suggest double counting. These items strongly suggest that Plaintiff’s entire Cost Memo is suspect and that the Court should ask for detailed explanations and receipts. Accordingly, the court should grant Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs. II. LEGAL STANDARD AND BURDEN OF PROOF Under common law, “parties to litigation must bear their own costs. The right to recover any of such costs is determined entirely by statute.” Sanchez v. Bay Shore Med. Group, (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 946, 948; see also Davis v. KGO-T. V. Inc., (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 436, 439 (“It is axiomatic that the right to recover costs is purely statutory, and, in the absence of an authorizing statute, no costs can be recovered by either party.”), superseded by statute on other grounds. Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 specifically identifies and limits the items that a prevailing party, as defined by Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, may recover. In addition, any allowable costs (i.e., those that are not specifically excluded) must also be (1) “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation;” and (2) “reasonable in amount.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c) (emphasis added). Hence, the court can disallow even allowable costs if they are not reasonably necessary, and the court also may reduce any allowable and reasonably necessary cost item to that which is reasonable. Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises, (1992) 4 Cal. App. 4th 238, 245. Once the recoverability of cost items has been challenged, they are put in issue and the party claiming the costs (in this case, Plaintiff) has the burden of proof to establish that the costs are 111 1 DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC.”S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN hn B W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reasonable and necessary. Ladas v. California State Auto. Ass'n, (1993) 19 Cal App. 4th 761, 774; Melnyk v. Robledo, (1976) 64 Cal. App. 3d 618, 624. The “mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a ‘proper objection’ to an item, the necessity of which appears doubtful or which does not appear to be proper on its face.” Nelson v. Anderson, (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 111, 131. As is detailed below, Plaintiff has overreached repeatedly in her Cost Memo by seeking reimbursement of costs that plainly are disallowed, unnecessary, duplicative, and/or unreasonable. Here, the Court should tax Plaintiff’s costs that are disallowed, unnecessary, and/or unreasonable, and, to the extent that evidence or information is required to make that determination, the Court should order Plaintiff to provide it. III. PLAINTIFE’S COSTS MEMO INCLUDES NUMEROUS ITEMS THAT ARE DISALLOWED, NOT REASONABLY NECESSARY, AND/OR UNREASONABLE IN AMOUNT. A. Category 4 - Deposition Costs Defendant agrees that a prevailing party may recover certain costs incurred in taking depositions. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1033.5(a)(3). However, Plaintiff seeks $40,182.79 in deposition costs that appear not to be reasonably necessary and or reasonable in amount. First, Plaintiff lists what appear to be duplicative entries for the depositions of Betsy Miller, Layton Davenport, and Lupe Diaz. Although Plaintiff deposed Ms. Miller twice on 3/28/17 and 12/13/17, Plaintiff seeks to recover costs for three depositions on 4/19/17, 12/29/17, and 1/3/18. (Moon Decl., {4.) Plaintiff also deposed Mr. Davenport twice on 3/28/17 and 10/24/17, but seeks to recover costs for three depositions on 4/19/17, 10/31/17, and 11/10/17. (Moon Decl., {5.) Similarly, while Plaintiff deposed Lupe Diaz once on 2/28/17, Plaintiff’s Cost Memo reflects two charges for her deposition on 3/1/18 and 3/15/18. (Moon Decl., ]6.). Second, Plaintiff seeks cancellation fees of $185.00 on 12/18/17 for the John Cleary deposition for the stenographer and $350.00 on 1/23/18 for the videographer, even though Plaintiff cancelled the deposition on the morning of his scheduled deposition. (Moon Decl., 7.) These costs should be taxed in their entirety. 111 2 DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC.”S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN hn B W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Third, Plaintiff appears to be asking Defendant to pay the cost of expedited transcripts. For example, Plaintiff deposed current employee Katherine Lelea for only 2.5 hours on 3/8/18, but seeks costs in the amount of $1,465.24. (Moon Decl., { 8.) Although an expedited deposition transcript may be convenient, it is not “reasonably necessary.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c); Hsu v. Semiconductor Systems, Inc., (2005) 126 Cal. App. 4th 1330, 1342 (holding that trial court erred in awarding expedited deposition transcript fees). Moreover, expedited transcript costs exceed basic transcript costs and are not reasonable. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c). B. Category 5S - Service of Process Plaintiff seeks $21,732.04 in process service charges. “Whether and in what amount the expenses for service of process are allowed depends upon who served the process and what amount is allowed to a public officer in this state for such a service.” Nelson, 72 Cal. App.4th at 132 (emphasis added). When a party’s memorandum of costs does not explain how Plaintiff served the subpoenas, “it cannot be determined from the face of the cost bill whether the items are proper,” and the burden is on the requesting party to “establish the necessity and reasonableness of the service costs.” Id. The Court should tax these costs. First, the costs are not allowable. Plaintiff seeks a total of $10,330 to “locate” and for “surveillance” of witnesses; however, these costs appear to be investigative costs incurred by Plaintiff to prepare her case for trial (i.e., locate and interview witnesses), which are not allowable. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1033.5(b)(2) (“Investigation expenses in preparing the case for trial” are not allowable costs). Second, Plaintiff unnecessarily incurred much of these costs by serving individuals who Plaintiff knew Defendant’s counsel represented and for whom counsel already had agreed to accept service. For example, Plaintiff incurred $618.55 to serve Stephen Conley, even though Conley was a previously dismissed co-defendant and represented by counsel for the entirety of this action. (Moon Decl., 9.) Plaintiff also seeks $1,200 in service costs for Ana Quintana, Mary Davis, and Katherine Lelea on 10/16/18, even though Defendant’s counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that they would accept service on the witness’ behalf. (Moon Decl., {{ 8, 10, Ex. B.) Plaintiff also incurred an unexplained charge on 6/13/18 of $132.20 for serving Defendant’s law firm. 3 DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC.”S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN hn B W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Third, Plaintiff’s incurred costs of $10,071.30 were not reasonably necessary to the litigation. Plaintiff served individuals who were: (1) purported “me too witness” that the Court expressly excluded from testifying at trial (Mendoza, Brown, Stagnaro, Munoz, Kennard, Frank, Johnson, McCann, James Yarrell, and Erica Yarrell); (2) individuals who were not on Plaintiff’s witness list, neither side deposed, and who Plaintiff never called to testify at trial (Bernice Sparks, Lita Enrique, Elsie Simsuango, Loreta Camiling, Amy Cruz, Tanya Reed, Phyllis Roberts, and Elizabeth Pang); and (3) individuals who were on Plaintiff’s witness list, but neither party deposed and who Plaintiff never called to testify at trial (Quintana, Davis, Brown, O’Brien, Prasad, Villas, McArthur, Jones, Acosta, Maxey, and Lord, Zuniga). These costs should be taxed in their entirety. Fourth, Plaintiff provides no explanation for the $700 incurred for “Affidavit Service Attempts,” and, on their face, these charges are not reasonably necessary. Finally, Plaintiff’s Cost Memo reflects duplicative charges that Plaintiff incurred on the same individuals/entities on the exact same date, including two charges of $90.60 for serving Lopez on the same date (12/29/17) and two charges for $115.40 for serving South Bay Surgeons on the same date (12/29/17). C. Category 8 - Witness Fees 1. Expert witness fees Plaintiff demands $65,341.04 for the fees and costs of expert witnesses. These costs are not reasonable in amount under the circumstances. First, Plaintiff seeks $45,344 for unidentified work performed by Plaintiff’s Human Resources Expert, Maureen Clark. Plaintiff designated Ms. Clark as an expert in connection with Defendant’s asset protection investigation in order to establish her termination claims. The jury, however, ruled against Plaintiff on all such claims, rendering Ms. Clark’s testimony unnecessary. See Perona v. Time Warner Cable, 2016 WL 8941101 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (taxing fees associated with plaintiff’s human resources expert because the testimony was not necessary for the jury to determine whether the defendant failed to engage in the interactive process). In addition, the Court granted Defendant’s motion in limine and limited the scope of Ms. Clark testimony. She testified less than an hour at trial. Even that testimony consisted of limited 4 DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC.”S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN hn B W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 statements regarding whether Defendant followed its investigation policy, a subject for which she should have devoted very little time preparing given her asserted qualifications as a human resources expert. See Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles, 2010 WL 9044383 (Cal. Super. Sep. 03, 2010) (reducing expert witness fees by 62% where the court found the expert’s testimony to be of very limited value and redundant to the testimony of others). None of her testimony related to or addressed Plaintiff’s claims of failure to accommodate or failure to engage in the interactive process. Ultimately, Plaintiff makes absolutely no attempt to justify the Clark’s exorbitant fees, and Defendant should not be pay for an expert who Plaintiff gave free rein to spend unlimited amounts of time. Second, Plaintiff seeks $3,800 in expert fees for her purported punitive damages expert, Russell Suede (SRA Group). However, these fees were not necessary nor reasonable. Suede did not expend any time on this case because Defendant never took (or even noticed) his deposition, he did not testify at trial, and did not need to review any documents because no punitive damages phase occurred. His fees should be taxed in their entirety. Third, Plaintiff failed to list each expert witness’ hourly rate. Plaintiff claims a total of $12,900 in expert fees for Dr. Kaviani and Dr. Holtz, without providing any explanation or breakdown of this cost or any documentation to justify these fees. Neither Defendant nor the Court has any way of determining the charges that Plaintiff included. The Court should exercise its discretion and disallow these costs, reduce Plaintiff’s expert witness fees, or at a minimum require Plaintiff to provide a cost breakdown and submit supporting documentation so that the Court may determine whether Plaintiff incurred necessary and reasonable costs. See Cal. Gov. Code § 12965(b) (a court may, “in its discretion,” award a prevailing party on a FEHA claim its reasonable expert witness fees). 2. Nonexpert witness fees. The court also should tax Plaintiff’s nonexpert witness fees. First, Plaintiff claims witness fees for Chris Celaya ($400) and Henry Marroquin ($125), former Home Depot employees. However, the Court expressly excluded Celaya’s testimony. He did not work at the same store as Plaintiff and Plaintiff subpoenaed Mr. Celaya only because he filed a lawsuit against Defendant. Mr. Marroquin worked at the same store as Plaintiff, but not until after 5 DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC.”S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN hn B W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment. Mr. Celaya and Mr. Marroquin were not deposed and did not testify at trial. Second, Plaintiff also seeks to recover witness fees for purported “me too” witness Rosa Jensen ($150). However, the Court precluded Ms. Jensen from testifying. Thus, Plaintiff cannot recover the fees for this witness, who was not “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(¢c)(2). Third, Plaintiff's witness fees for Steve Conley ($432), James McKay ($200), and T’ Narrow Hall ($512) are completely unsupported. Under Government Code section 68093, a witness is entitled to $35 for each day’s actual attendance in addition to mileage (.20 cents a mile). At a maximum, Conley, McKay, and Hall spent two days each at trial, entitling each one to a $70 witness fee. These witnesses do not have mileage expenses because Plaintiff provided them with transportation to and from the courthouse. Fourth, Plaintiff seeks $2,269 in transportation costs, including numerous unexplained cancellation costs, for transporting Plaintiff’s witnesses to and from the courthouse (Chandler, T’Narrow, Conley, Jensen, Basa, Dr. Holtz, Alexander). Plaintiff fails to provide any details as to the nature of these costs or what transportation Plaintiff provided. However, because the statute does not authorize these costs, the court should tax them. 3. Category 9 - Court-ordered transcripts Plaintiff also seeks $5,610.10 for court-ordered transcripts. However, because the Court did not order these transcripts. (Moon Decl., q 11.), their costs must be taxed in its entirety. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(b)(5) (charges for “[t]ranscripts of court proceedings not ordered by the court” are not permitted). 4. Category 11 - Court reporter fees as established by statute Plaintiff claims $12,739.95 in court reporter fees. However, Plaintiff seeks multiple charges for the court reporter’s activities on the same court day, including Day 4 on 11/20/18 ($837.80 & $697.90), Day 6 on 11/30/18 ($385.50 & 262.50), Day 7 on 11/30/18 ($510.50, $262.50, $200, $372), Day 8 on 11/30/18 ($612.50 & $1,123.50), Day 10 on 11/30/18 ($462.50 & $605.15), and Day 11 on 11/30/18 ($262.50 & $262.50). 6 DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC.”S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN hn B W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff also seeks to recover $96.00 from 11/20/18 to order a rough draft transcript. However, because only court-ordered transcripts are reimbursable, and the Court did not order a draft of this transcript, this cost should be taxed. Accordingly, the court should tax Plaintiff’s claimed costs of $3,882.05. 3: Category 16 - Other Plaintiff’s last category of costs, totaling over $10,821.72, is devoted almost entirely to items that Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(b) precludes. First, Plaintiff asks for $5,519.92 in postage and delivery charges, despite the statute’s plain language that “postage. ..and photocopying charges, except for exhibits” are not allowable costs. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1033.5(b)(3); Ripley v. Pappadopoulos, (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 1616, 1627. The court should tax the entire amount. Second, Plaintiff seeks $1,120 for fees paid to Mauricio Aviles, an employee of Plaintiff’s counsel, for unspecified and unknown services. Plaintiff’s Cost Memo contains no information regarding Aviles’ services or rate for said unidentified services. IV. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion to Tax Costs. DATED: January 8, 2019 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. . 2 Charles L. Thompson, IV Michael J. Sexton Cara F. Barrick Alis M. Moon B Attorneys for Defendant Home Depot U.S.A, Inc. 7 DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC.”S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN hn B W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Patricia Tillotson v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. Case No. BC 601497 I am and was at all times herein mentioned over the age of 18 years and not a party to the action in which this service is made. At all times herein mentioned I have been employed in the County of Orange in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. My business address is 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 1500, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. On January 8, 2019, I served the following document(s): DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF by placing [] (the original) [X] (a true copy) in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Shawn M. Dantzler, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff Maryann Gallagher, Esq. PATRICIA TILLOTSON LAW OFFICES OF MARYANN GALLAGHER 205 South Broadway, Suite 920 Los Angeles, CA90012 (213) 626-1810; Fax No.: (213) 626-0961 Email: mgallagher @mpg-law.com mail @mpg-law.com sdantzler@mpg-law.com maviles @mpg-law.com VIA ONE LEGAL LLC: Pursuant to CRC 2.251(¢c)(3), I caused the documents to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed above. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on January 8, 2019, at Costa Mesa, California. (- Lan Ly 36870687.3 8 DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC.”S MOTION TO TAX COSTS Make a Reservation | Journal Technologies Court Portal Journal Technologies Court Portal Page 1 of 2 Make a Reservation PATRICIATILLOTSON VS THE HOME DEPOT ET AL Case Number: BC601497 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Date Filed: 2015-11-17 Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 14 Reservation Case Name: PATRICIATILLOTSON VS THE HOME DEPOT ETAL Type: Motion to Tax Costs Party: Home Depot USA, Inc. (Defendant) Date/Time: 07/30/2019 8:45 AM Reservation ID: 239043909382 Fees Description Motion to Tax Costs Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) TOTAL Payment Amount: $61.65 Account Number: XXXX0196 Case Number: BC601497 Status: RESERVED Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 14 Number of Motions: 1 Confirmation Code: CR-ZVBGEJBZKZMZVCFJY Fee Qty 60.00 1 1.65 1 Type: Visa Authorization: 093841 https://portal-lasc.journaltech.com/public-portal/?q=calendar/reserve Amount 60.00 1.65 $61.65 1/8/2019 Make a Reservation | Journal Technologies Court Portal Page 2 of 2 = Print Receipt = Reserve Another Hearing Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved. https://portal-lasc.journaltech.com/public-portal/?q=calendar/reserve 1/8/2019
