Opposition_to_plaintiffs_motion_to_tax_costsMotionCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.April 18, 2017Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 05/29/2020 11:13 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by W. Moore, Deputy Clerk ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Lisa Weddle, Bar No. 259050 lisa.weddle @morganlewis.com Abtin Amir, Bar No. 305091 abtin.amir@morganlewis.com 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Tel No: +1.213.612.2500 Fax No: +1.213.612.2501 Attorneys for Defendants, BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC and NEW CENTURY ALHAMBRA AUTOMOBILES, INC. dba NEW CENTURY BMW SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DAVID HONG and KANDICE RO, Plaintiffs, VS. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, NEW CENTURY ALHAMBRA AUTOMOBILES, INC., a California Corporation dba NEW CENTURY BMW, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. BC658215 Assigned to: Hon. Anthony J. Mohr Department: 96 DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS Hearing Date: June 23, 2020 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: 96 Date Action Filed: April 18, 2017 DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS MORGAN, LEWIS Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 & Table of Contents L INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT o.oo, A. Statement of Relevant Facts coos sssammessissssamomas s ss soammmnss ss 55 basmmns 5555 50am958 555 II. ARGUMENT L eee eee eee eee A New Century Timely Filed its Memorandum of Costs ~~ ........c..cooiiiiiiiiiiiinen. B. New Century is Entitled to Recover Costs Not Disputed by Plaintiffs ~~ ............... C All of New Century’s Requests for Recovery of Costs Were Reasonable and Necessary For its Successful Defense of this Action... D lem 8a - Ordinary Willies FEES = assures: cnssmmnns sss mmmanmns 55 : asmmmss ss 4 sms 555 595 E. Item 8a - Expert Witness Fees o.oo F lem 11. - Creafion of Trig] BXHIDS comes: os oomsmmns a 15 2 onmsmums 5 5 5 somsmmmns s + 5 umsmmns 1 555 6 H Item 12 - Court Reporter Fees as Established by Statute... L Item 16 - Other - Within the Court’s Discretion .........ccoveiiiiiiiiiiiiiiienene. III. CONCLUSION eee DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW’S 2 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Am. Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh (1992) 26 10 Cal. APP. 4th 1446 ......eieiieiee eee eee seers sbeebs eee a 9 American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (A002) 96 "Cal APPL, LUT yess osmosis oom ss os moms sommes 15, 16 Applegale v. St. Francis Lutheran Church (1994) 23 Cal. APPA 3601 «connie eee ste eee este sate sateen ease ee eae eee 15 Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal APP-ALh 836 neice eee eee teste eee este sbae sabes b ee eaee eee 15 Bender v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 217 CalLAPP-Ath O08... eee eee ste eee este sb ae este e ieee e essa eee 16 Burd v. Barkley Court Reporters, Inc. 17 Cal. ApP.Sth 1037, TO4S o.oo eee eee ete ete eesti esate sabes e ete e saa eene 17 Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (201.2) 203 Cal APA AD ono mmm ssn so sumans cnmsn on mss 555555.56 5055555 S55555% 15 5555558 5035.5 3555 558 SR555573855 14 Department of Consumer Affairs v. Superior Court (2016) 245 CaLAPP.AN 256 cnet eet eee sate sebastian 13 El Dorado Meat Co. v. Yosemite Meat & Locker Service, Inc. (2007) 150 CaLAPP.Ath 612 e eee sees beara eee saan 15 Green v. County of Riverside (201.8) 238 Cal APPA 1 36 sxmmmmsnsmssanssmmessmons osmosis 0m sso 0 5s oS Saas 16 Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal. APP. 4th 1522 ones sate seers st ee sabes abe erase 9 Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal. APP. 4th 1258 ...ceneeeee ieee e e eee set eee este saae sabe e seas 8,9, 10 Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. APPA TOL eons ee eee 16, 18 Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 24 Cal. APP. Ath TOL eers sate eee steer e saan 18 People ex rel. Lockyer v. Fremont General Corp. (2001) BY Cal APPA. T2OU) co smmss0m ummm 00 sumans cnssn on sss aoassm.56 5055555 555555515 5555558 55055.5 55555508 SR555573855 14 DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW’S 3 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Prince v. Invensure Ins. Brokers, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal APPSH 618 G22 cuss onscusummsesuemnnwsmmaseesons sss sem ams ss GABE 14 Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Service Inc. (1979) 93 Cal. APP. 3A 256.....ciiieiieeiie ters eae sae seen eee 9 Reichardt v. Hoffman (1997) 52 Cal. APP. Ath 754 oot eae sate sae esses 9 San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 308,310 ....eeeuiiriiiriieiirieeie etcetera sete steerer eects seas sae esac seene 9 San Paolo United States Holding Co. v. 816 S. Figueroa Co. (1998) 62 Cal. APP-Ath T1010 conics reece ee sate sees eee 17 Thon v. Thompson (1994) 29 Cal. APP: AN LAE ; sumssin ssn so sumans cxmsn on mses oom o6 5055555 55555515 5555558 S505 55555558 5555573855 18 STATUTES Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1033.5 (Q)(IL) .uvveeiieieeieiiiieee ieee eect e e eects e eee eear ears sees ee earanne es 17 Cal. Gov. Code § 68086, subd. (€) & 3 (A)(2) «veerrereereeieeieeiiereetee eects ee seers 16 Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, subd. (2)(3)(A) ..ceeieieireeeee ieee eect e cece e sees eee ae eee sees eaaanae es 11 Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1033.5, subd. (¢)(2) and 1033.5, subd. (C)(3) ..ccevverrrrrrereeeeieciirreeeeeeeeeeenns 16, 17 Code of Civil Procedure Section 064.5 .........cccoiiiiiiieiiiiiinie n eces sete eres sneer enna 9 Code of Civil Procedure SECON 998... .. cusses svmussn ss auunsss soussn su sums swan i suman avs sn ss swsnsss isan dns passim Code of Civil Procedure section 998, subdivision (C)(1)...ccccoveeireeeereiiiiiirrieeieeeereciirieee eee e eeevnen s 14 Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (Q) ......ccceeeeeeeeeiiiirirreeeeeeeeriiirreeeee eee eeennen ns 16 Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (2)(4) ........ceeeveeeierereeeeeeeeieiirreeeeeeeereennns 12,13 Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5, subdivision (2)(12) .......cccoevveurreeeeeeeeriiiiriereeeee cece 15 Code of Civil Procedure, section 1033.5, subdivision (C)(4) .......cceevevvvinereeereeeerecirnnnen 15,17, 18, 19 OTHER AUTHORITIES Cal. R. Court, RULE 2.956(C) ..vviieeiiiee eis ieee eee eee te ee ette eee tae esas saaaae ae sanaae esse sseae ae ssssaeaeanns 16 Rule 3.1700, subdivision (Q)(1)....cuuieeeiiiiiieeeiieie ee eiiie eects esses ee etae ee estae ae ee sasaae ee snnrae ee ennsaeaeeessnens 9 DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S 4 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Defendant New Century Alhambra Automobiles, Inc. dba New Century BMW (“New Century”) respectfully submits the following Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Tax Costs filed by Plaintiffs on February 18, 2020. As a preliminary matter, New Century would like to clear up any confusion potentially caused by Plaintiffs misleading “Motion to Strike or Tax BMW's 3/20/20 Memorandum of Costs,” which Plaintiffs filed on April 9, 2020, in response to co- defendant BMW of North America, LLC's (BMW NA) separate and independent memorandum of costs, which BMW NA timely filed on its own behalf on March 20, 2020. Plaintiffs’ feigned confusion, in its April 9, 2020, motion to strike or tax costs, about why the two separate and distinct defendants in this case filed two separate memoranda of costs is not only irrelevant to the Court’s determination here, nor is there any universe in which it would be reasonable for Plaintiffs or their counsel to be so confused in this case about the independent rights of the two separate and distinct defendants to file and recover on their independent memoranda of costs. The fact that these two defendants are distinct cannot possibly come as a surprise to Plaintiffs or their counsel at this point in this litigation, especially given (1) Plaintiffs’ lead trial counsel attempted to avoid the possibility of New Century separately seeking its costs by making a token offer to dismiss New Century in exchange for waiver of its costs just before trial began, (2) the repetitious arguments Plaintiffs raised about the liability of the distributor (BMW NA) versus the dealership (New Century) under the law, (3) the fact that Plaintiffs deliberately chose to sue and separately serve each of the distinct defendants in this lawsuit with their various papers, and (4) where they ultimately dismissed one of the defendants (New Century) while pursuing their jury trial against the other (BMW NA). Simply put, the Court should simply ignore Plaintiffs’ attempt to treat both defendants as one entity as Plaintiffs repeatedly but improperly tried to do at trial. I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This was a simple lemon-law action involving a single leased vehicle with a clean service history that clearly demonstrated it did not qualify for repurchase, and where New Century and BMW NA (collectively, “Defendants”) knew they had complied with all their obligations under DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW’S 5 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES the relevant contracts and laws. Despite this, Defendants promptly served Plaintiffs with an incredibly generous offer in July of 2017, pursuant to Section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to put a quick end to what Defendants knew would be another of the countless similar needlessly protracted and incredibly expensive lawsuits by these specific plaintiffs’ attorneys at Knight Law Group and the Law Offices of Michael Rosenstein. Had Plaintiffs accepted that offer, they would have received $23,000 (more than all the money they had paid for the lease of the Subject Vehicle), plus all their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. (Amir, Decl., Exh. 1.) Instead, Plaintiffs’ did exactly what Defendants tried to avoid, and needlessly dragged this lawsuit out for nearly four years, costing Defendants hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees and costs to rightfully defend themselves while Plaintiffs continued to repeatedly reject every subsequent good-faith offer made by Defendants over the years despite the obviously weak nature of their claims. Ultimately, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed two of their meritless claims just before trial commenced, and the remaining two were rejected by the Court following motions for nonsuit and directed verdict, and following the jury’s nearly unanimous defense verdict on the final count which found no substantial defect in the Subject Vehicle over the course of the three-year lease. Now, Plaintiffs make a series of disingenuous contentions about the recoverability, reasonableness, or necessity of Defendants’ separate requests for recovery of their reasonable costs necessarily incurred for the proper and ultimately successful defense of this lawsuit. Specifically, while Plaintiffs claim these costs are not recoverable or necessary under section 1033.5 in the body of their motion, their own counsel routinely request, argue for, and actually recover these exact same challenged costs on behalf of their successful lemon-law clients, and will never submit a declaration under oath to the contrary. A. Statement of Relevant Facts On April 18, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against two separate and distinct defendants; New Century, the dealership which serviced Plaintiffs’ vehicle on a few occasions, and BMW NA, the distributor of the vehicle. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleged three Song-Beverly causes of action specifically and solely against BMW NA, and alleged a single count of DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S 6 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES “negligent repair” specifically and solely against New Century. On May 22, 2017, co-defendant BMW NA filed its Answer to the Complaint. On June 1, 2018, New Century filed its Answer to the Complaint. On July 13, 2017, Plaintiffs were served with a valid, unambiguous, and more-than-generous offer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 for more than a full refund of all monies paid by Plaintiffs for the Subject Vehicle, plus all their costs and attorneys’ fees. (Amir, Decl., Exh. 1.) On October 4, 2018, Plaintiffs successfully moved ex parte to continue the original trial date due to the unavailability of its key witness, Ms. Young Kang, Plaintiffs’ mother/mother-in- law, and the primary driver of the Subject Vehicle whom was the only witness to claim she had experienced the alleged defects. Plaintiffs’ basis was that Ms. Kang was out of the country and would be unavailable to testify. The trial date was subsequently continued a few more times outside the control of Defendants due to the congestion of the Court’s calendar and scheduling conflicts with other trials already underway in this Department. On November 5, 2018, the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP substituted in for the law form Bowman and Brooke LLP, as new counsel for both Defendants. On January 13, 2020, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their third cause of action for alleged failure to repair within 30 days, which was solely against co-defendant BMW NA, and commenced their jury trial against both defendants on the three remaining claims. On January 14, 2020, prior to voir dire, head counsel for Plaintiffs, Mr. Richard Wirtz, approached trial counsel for defendants, Mr. Abtin Amir, and bluffed a “deal” to drop Plaintiffs’ negligent repair claim and to dismiss New Century from the lawsuit in exchange for New Century waiving its right to recover its costs in this matter. (Amir Decl., at 2.) Because New Century felt it had been needlessly dragged through this lawsuit by Plaintiffs solely as some kind of bargaining chip against BMW NA, and because it knew that Plaintiffs could never hope to succeed on their meritless negligence claim, it rejected the offer and Mr. Amir advised Mr. Wirtz that New Century would in fact seek to rightfully recover its costs after being vindicated. (/bid.) Later that day, on January 14, Plaintiffs apparently conceded that their negligence claim against New Century was meritless, and they voluntarily dismissed that claim part way through DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S 7 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES voir dire without New Century having agreed to any kind of “deal.” (Ibid.) That was the only claim Plaintiffs had brought against New Century, and the clerk accordingly entered the Court’s order of dismissal of New Century from the lawsuit that same day. On January 29, 2020, New Century timely filed its own Memorandum of Costs (Amir Decl. Exh. 2), and the Court’s docket unambiguously reflects that its Memorandum of Costs was “Filed by New Century Alhambra Automobiles, Inc (Defendant) on that date. New Century’s Memorandum of Costs appropriately sought to recover only its own costs, and not the costs of co- defendant BMW NA, which was still actively defending itself at trial. This Memorandum of Costs filed by New Century is the subject of this brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs motion filed on February 18, 2020. On February 3, 2020, the jury returned a nearly unanimous verdict in favor of co- defendant BMW NA. On February 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their motion to tax New Century’s costs, which New Century had filed on January 29, 2020. On March 11, 2020, co-defendant BMW NA timely filed and served its notice of entry of judgment. On March 20, 2020, co-defendant BMW NA timely filed its own independent Memorandum of Costs, and this Court’s docket unambiguously reflects that BMW NA’s Memorandum of costs was timely “Filed by BMW of North America, LLC (Defendant)” on that date. BMW NA appropriately sought to recover only its own costs after prevailing at trial, and did not seek to recover either New Century’s costs, or any overlapping costs already sought by New Century’s Memorandum of Costs which it had independently filed on January 29, 2020. On April 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike or tax co-defendant BMW NA'’s independent Memorandum of Costs, which BMW NA had filed on March 20, 2020. II. ARGUMENT “If items on their face appear to be proper charges, the verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary.” (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 1258, 1266) (emphasis added).) Here, Plaintiffs have failed to support their arguments to tax New DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S 8 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS 1 || Century’s costs with any declaration setting forth legitimate factual reasons why the challenged items are unreasonable or unnecessary. (See Jones, 63 Cal. App. 4th 22 at 1266; see also Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Service Inc. (1979) 93 Cal. App. 3d 256, 266 (holding “[a party’s] mere statements in the points and authorities accompanying its notice of motion to strike cost bill and the declaration of counsel are insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing [that costs were reasonably incurred]”).) As Plaintiffs failed to put before this Court any legitimate factual basis ~N O Y a B A W for their objections, and are relying solely on a series of conclusory statements, Plaintiffs failed to 8 | carry their burden and this Court should deny their Motion to Tax Costs on this ground alone. 9 A. New Century Timely Filed its Memorandum of Costs 10 New Century timely filed its Memorandum of Costs, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Tax New 11 || Century’s costs, filed February 18, 2020, does not dispute this.> Rule 3.1700, subdivision (a)(1), 12 || of the California Rules of Court provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 13 A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 14 || days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under 15 || Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of 16 || judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first. 17 Here, on January 14, 2020, Plaintiffs voluntarily dropped their meritless negligence claim 18 || against New Century (the only claim against New Century), and the clerk entered the Court’s 19 || order of dismissal of New Century from this lawsuit that same day. Accordingly, New Century 20 21 || ! Plaintiffs should not be permitted to cite new evidence or raise new arguments on reply, as they did in their Reply in support of their unsuccessful Motion for New Trial, in light of the resulting prejudice to 22 || Defendant (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 1522, 1538 [points raised for the first time in a reply brief at the trial court level will ordinarily not be considered, because such consideration would deprive the 23 || respondent of an opportunity to counter the argument]; Am. Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh (1992) 26 10 Cal. App. 4th 1446, 1453 [same]; Reichardt v. Hoffman (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 754. 764 [refusing to consider 24 || new issues raised in reply brief]; San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 308,310 [reversing summary judgment where the moving party submitted for the first time with 25 || its reply papers a supplemental declaration containing new facts].) 2 New Century notes that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Tax co-defendant BMW NA’s costs, filed on April 9, 2020, 26 makes a disingenuous argument that New Century’s Memorandum of Costs was somehow premature by conflating it with BMW NA’s independent Memorandum of Costs, while pretending to somehow believed 27 the two wholly independent defendants are one, referring to both as “BMW” without distinction and feigning confusion about why BMW NA would file a separate Memorandum of Costs seeking entirely 28 different recovery of its own costs after prevailing at trial. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S STORNEXSATLAY 9 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 Los ANGELES MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES timely fled its Memorandum of Costs by the due date of January 29, 2020, which was 15 days after the clerk’s entry of dismissal of New Century from this lawsuit, entered on January 14, 2020. (Amir Decl., Exh. 3 [Court’s Docket stating Memorandum of Costs was “Filed by New Century Alhambra Automobiles, Inc” on January 29, 2020].) B. New Century is Entitled to Recover Costs Not Disputed by Plaintiffs Plaintiff concedes that New Century is entitled to an award of at least $5,503.45. (Plaintiffs’ Mtn. to Tax New Century’s Costs, filed Feb. 18, 2020, at p. 10.) Since New Century’s Memorandum of Costs is prima facie evidence of its entitlement to such costs, and Plaintiff does not dispute this amount, it should be the minimum recovery awarded. (See Jones, supra, 63 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1266).) C. All of New Century’s Requests for Recovery of Costs Were Reasonable and Necessary For its Successful Defense of this Action 1. Item 1 - Motion and Filing Fees Plaintiffs do not dispute New Century incurred the challenged $420 in filing fees, but argues they were not reasonably incurred. The disputed amount consisted on seven filing charges of $60 each for (1) reserving a hearing on a motion to compel, and (2) six independent motions to strike six Plaintiffs’ six separate untimely motions in limine, without Plaintiffs’ having sought the Court’s leave to belatedly file those motions. While Plaintiffs are correct that the challenged motion to compel was not filed, that does not change the fact that Plaintiffs forced New Century to incur a $60 fee to reserve a hearing on a motion to compel necessitated by Plaintiffs’ failure to cooperate in discovery until they finally relented following New Century’s reservation and threat of such motion. (Amir Decl., Exh. 3.) Had Plaintiffs not obstructed New Century’s legitimate discovery requests, this $60 fee would not have been necessary. Plaintiffs’ only other challenge is New Century’s request to recover $360 for six independent motions to strike, but Plaintiffs cite no authority for their contention that New Century could have filed only one motion to strike in response to six of Plaintiff’s separate motions in limine. Simply put, New Century would not be permitted to file just one motion to DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S 10 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES strike Plaintiff’s six separate motions for the same reason Plaintiff would not be permitted to file his six motions as one. Lastly, Plaintiffs’ contention that New Century should have essentially had a crystal ball and known in advance that the motions would later be taken off calendar due to an unexpected continuance is not reasonable. 2. Item 4 - Deposition Costs a. Transcribing Costs for Depositions New Century is statutorily entitled to recover its costs related to the “[t]aking, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, subd. (a)(3)(A).) Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention that New Century cannot recover the cost of originals or even one certified copy of these necessary depositions, this section unambiguously and expressly allows for New Century to recover the cost of both “an original . . . and one copy of depositions taken by the party against whom costs are allowed.” (Ibid.) To the extent that Plaintiff argues New Century or BMW NA received the originals of depositions taken by Plaintiffs, the recipient was obligated to maintain the originals as received from the reporter, and not copy or mark them. New Century had to purchase a certified copy and is not seeking to charge or recover for any additional copies. New Century reasonably seeks recovery of these statutorily permitted costs and, in addition to the prima facie evidence in the Memorandum of Costs, attaches the invoices as further proof of having incurred them. (Amir Decl., Exh. 4.) b. Videotaping Plaintiffs’ Key Witness, Young Kang Plaintiffs challenge the reasonableness of videotaping Young Kang, the primary driver of the vehicle and Plaintiffs’ key witness. Section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(3)(A) expressly allows for New Century to recover costs for “Taking, video recording, and transcribing” this necessary deposition of Ms. Kang, whom is Plaintiff Hong’s mother-in-law and the primary driver of the Subject Vehicle. (Amir Decl., Exh. 5.) Setting aside the fact that Plaintiffs’ cite no law or logic to support their assertion that videotaping this deposition was not necessary simply because Defendants “did not videotape any other depositions,” this fact actually supports the DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S 11 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES reasonableness of Defendants videotaping only this deposition because it was the only one they felt was absolutely necessary to videotape. Specifically, Defendants needed to videotape this particular deposition for a number of legitimate and necessary reasons which include, but were not limited to; (1) Ms. Kang was the only witness to claim to have personally experienced the alleged defects, so it was critical to ensure an accurate record of her descriptions, as well as for the jury to be able to see her hand gestures and body language, and to hear her verbal sound effects and tone, to determine the credibility of her deposition testimony; (2) Ms. Kang did not speak English, which created the real possibility that Plaintiffs would attempt to belatedly challenge the accuracy of the translation at trial (which is exactly what they did here); (3) Ms. Kang was living in Las Vegas, and Plaintiffs’ counsel advised Defendants that she would be traveling to Korea and may not be available to testify at all (See Mikhov Decl. ISO P’s 1st Mtn., Exh. I), necessitating a recording while she was briefly made available; (4) Ms. Kang’s description of the alleged defects was wholly inconsistent with the descriptions provided by Plaintiffs and their experts, so it was critical for the jury to see for themselves how she described her alleged experiences; and (5) since Plaintiffs had divorced and Mr. Hong was the one who paid for the car and would realistically be the one to recover financially, there was a real possibility that Ms. Kang would refuse to appear at trial to testify for her ex-son-in-law if their relationship had soured, necessitating a video- recording of her descriptions of the alleged defects in her own words. 3. Item 5 - Service of Process Challenges $254.85 for service of depositions subpoena on Young Kang which New Century is permitted to recover under section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(4). (Amir Decl., Exh. 6.) Ms. Kang was a non-party and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s agreement to produce her was not only after she was subpoenaed, their promise is not enforceable. Specifically, Counsel for defendants, Ray Collins, emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel on November 19, 2018, asking if Plaintiffs’ counsel would accept service of a deposition subpoena on Ms. Kang’s behalf, and advised counsel that the subpoena would be served at Defendants’ last known address for her in California if they did not respond. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond, so the subpoena was reasonably sent to that DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S 12 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES address. This cost was necessary but could have been avoided had Plaintiffs’ counsel simply agreed to accept service. Further, this cost would have been incurred even if it was sent to Ms. Kang’s new address, so Plaintiffs’ contention that it was incurred only because it was sent to an old address is disingenuous. Thus, Defendants reasonably had to ensure she appeared by serving a subpoena, particularly since Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond to request, and given the substantial attorneys’ fees and reporter costs that would be incurred needlessly had she not appeared. D. Item 8a - Ordinary Witness Fees Plaintiffs do not dispute that New Century paid $143.30 to their mother/mother-in-law. (Amir Decl., Exh. 7.) New Century is entitled to recover it pursuant to section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(3)(C). Instead, they challenge the mileage amount of $108.40 paid to Ms. Kang on the dubious assertion that New Century and BMW NA should have sent their attorneys and Plaintiffs’ numerous attorneys out-of-state to Las Vegas for this one deposition. First of all, the resulting substantial travel costs that both Parties and their attorneys would have had to incur as a result of Plaintiffs’ current proposal would have obviously far exceeded this amount. Second, Los Angeles was the only logical location for this deposition because it was filed in Los Angeles, and all counsel, all Defendants’ witnesses, and all events in this case were located in California near Los Angeles. It simply would not make any sense to force everyone to travel out-of-state for this one deposition. E. Item 8a - Expert Witness Fees In addition to the Court’s discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(4), New Century is independently entitled pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 to recover the $600 which Plaintiffs do not dispute it incurred for the obviously necessary deposition of Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Darrell Blasjo, after Plaintiffs failed to accept or beat Defendants’ valid offer from July 2017 (Amir Decl., Exh. 8.) Instead, Plaintiffs raise meritless contentions about the purported invalidity of that offer. A Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to compromise is a valid cost-shifting mechanism to settle an action brought under Song-Beverly (Department of Consumer Affairs v. DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S 13 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Superior Court (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 256, 260), and its purpose is to encourage settlement of litigation without trial by punishing the party who fails to accept a reasonable settlement offer from its opponent (Prince v. Invensure Ins. Brokers, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 614, 622). Code of Civil Procedure section 998, subdivision (c)(1), provides in pertinent part: “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer. . ..” This statute independently requires Plaintiff to pay all of the costs that both Defendants incurred after the July 13, 2017 Offer was served. Section 998, subdivision (c)(1), expressly authorizes expert witness fees as recoverable costs where, as here, a plaintiff rejects the defendants’ offer and then fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Fremont General Corp. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1264-65.) Parties may also recover the fees paid to the opposing party’s experts. (Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 55.) Here, Plaintiffs’ contention that Plaintiffs were served with only one Section 998 offer is not only irrelevant, it would be foolish for Defendants to have served a different offer pursuant to section 998, as the second offer would destroy the protections provided by the first by operation of law. Instead, Defendants repeatedly offered to settle for various generous amounts throughout the litigation, including at mediation, but Plaintiffs never budged and elected to litigate for four years instead. The unfortunate truth is that this particular Plaintiffs’ counsel, among others, routinely and deliberately allow all initial valid section 998 offers to expire, regardless of their terms, then serve boilerplate objections feigning an inability to understand the terms (even though they have accepted numerous identical offers in many other cases, but only after years of attorneys’ fees have been billed), in an attempt to get Defendants to keep offering new offers to continually bump up the fee/cost cutoff date to the latest offer, as the new offer automatically invalidates the prior one. Plaintiffs should not be permitted to benefit from this gamesmanship and bad-faith approach to settlement which runs contrary to the purpose and spirit of the statute to help parties settle, while serving only to line the pockets of attorneys. The terms of Defendants’ July 2017 section 998 Offer were made in good faith, which is DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S 14 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES readily apparent upon even a cursory review of it, and further evidenced by the fact that the amount offered was more than a full refund for all monies paid by Plaintiffs for the Subject Vehicle, especially considering Plaintiffs ultimately recovered nothing at all when all of their claims were found to be wholly meritless following their voluntary dismissal of two claims, and the rejection of the remaining two by the Court and the jury. Plaintiffs’ challenge is based upon a fabricated fear that, because the offer contained no exact deadline for payment, it could possibly allow BMW to “delay payment as long as it wanted, all the while arguing it was not in breach,” is entirely meritless. First of all, the terms of the agreement unambiguously provided that the Court would retain jurisdiction to enforce it, and that Plaintiffs’ obligation to dismiss the lawsuit would not even start until “5 business days after receiving all payments.” Second, neither Defendant has ever, or would ever, attempt to indefinitely withhold settlement payment while racking up needless attorneys’ fees just to inevitably have a Court swiftly end the charade while forcing Defendants to pay attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs to enforce the offer. F. Item 11 - Creation of Trial Exhibits Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(12) provides that expenses of creating trial exhibits “may be allowed if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact,” and expenses for computerized forms of models or blow-ups, such as imaging documents and video and graphic exhibit boards, are recoverable as well. (See American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1057; El Dorado Meat Co. v. Yosemite Meat & Locker Service, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 612, 618-619.) In cases like this, where the case went to trial, the courts have determined that it would not be equitable or reasonable to require either a party claiming exhibit costs, or this Court in awarding exhibit costs, to identify which exhibits were or were not helpful to the trier of fact. For example, in Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal. App.4th 836, 856-857, the court held: Although the [party] did not use the majority of its exhibits at trial, nothing indicates it could have anticipated that they would not be used. An experienced trial judge would recognize that it would be inequitable to deny as allowable costs exhibits any prudent counsel would prepare in advance of trial. The Court also has discretion to allow costs for exhibits not actually used at trial, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(4). (Applegale v. St. Francis DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S 15 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Lutheran Church (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 361, 364.) New Century had to prepare exhibits to defend against every argument Plaintiffs might have raised at trial. (Amir Decl., Exh. 9.) It was also necessary to assemble the exhibits into a form in which the exhibits could be easily accessed. Plaintiffs were provided copies of all the potential exhibits and have not pointed to any exhibit which was wholly irrelevant or could not have been used at trial for any purpose. In Green v. County of Riverside (2015) 238 Cal. App.4th 1363, 1373-1374, the Court of Appeal upheld an award of $40,610.68 “for preparation and presentation of electronic evidence, including videos of deposition testimony, exhibits and excerpts from audio recordings, at trial.” The Court ruled as follows: These costs are neither specifically allowable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a) nor prohibited by subdivision (b). They may be awarded provided they are “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” ((/d., subd. (c)(2); see Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. App.4th 761, 774.) Whether such costs were reasonably necessary is a question of fact for the trial Court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Ladas, at p. 774.) Use of such technology, including a technician to monitor the equipment and quickly resolve any glitches, has become commonplace, if not expected by jurors. (Bender v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 968, 990.) The trial Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing these costs as reasonably helpful to aid the jury. (Ibid.; see American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal. App.4th 1017, 1057.) (Id. at p. 1374.) In light of this authority, New Century should be awarded the costs it incurred to prepare evidence to be digitally projected at trial. As set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Abtin Amir, these costs were both reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and reasonable in amount (Amir Decl.; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1033.5, subd. (¢)(2) and 1033.5, subd. (¢)(3).) G. Item 12 - Court Reporter Fees as Established by Statute As the Court and Plaintiffs are aware, the Los Angeles Superior Court does not provide official court reporters, and the Parties must privately retain court reporters as official reporters pro tempore for hearings and proceedings-the process used here. Accordingly, the costs for such official pro tempore court reporters “shall be recoverable as taxable costs by the prevailing party as otherwise provided by law.” (Cal. Gov. Code § 68086, subd. (c) & 3 (d)(2). And see Cal. R. DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S 16 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES Court, Rule 2.956(c); see also Burd v. Barkley Court Reporters, Inc. 17 Cal. App.5th 1037, 1045 [“The plain language of the statutes indicates that the prescribed transcription fees are intended to apply to court reporters generally, and are not limited to court reporters employed by the Superior Court”]. Accordingly, the court reporter fees are “established by statute” and recoverable as costs. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1033.5 (a)(II).) Here, New Century incurred $655 in court reporter fees for the Final Status Conference held on March 20, 2019, and $425 for court reporter fees for a Final Status Conference held on May 17, 2019, both which were necessary to the conduct of litigation and recoverable as costs, as the court reporter fees are established by statute. (Amir Decl., Exh. 10.) Given the importance of having a record of the rulings and stipulations made at such conferences, the necessity of an accurate record of them is obvious. H. Item 14 - Fees for Electronic Filing or Service First of all, electronic filing is necessary and reasonable because the Superior Court requires it, despite Plaintiffs’ contention to the contrary, and is expressly made recoverable by section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(14). (Amir Decl., Exh. 11.) Further, any other option for expedited filings would cost significantly more, making electronic filing the most reasonable. I. Item 16 - Other - Within the Court’s Discretion Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Court has discretion to allow costs for items not expressly mentioned in the statute, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(4). As set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Abtin Amir, all the costs that New Century has requested were both reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and reasonable in amount. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1033.5, subd. (¢)(2) and 1033.5, subd. (c¢)(3).) The fact that New Century actually incurred and paid the costs it is seeking to recover means that those costs represent the fair market value of the services rendered, which is “‘[a]n actual price, agreed to by a willing buyer and a willing seller, [and] is the most accurate gauge of the value the market places on a good.” (San Paolo United States Holding Co. v. 816 S. Figueroa Co. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1026.) There is nothing to suggest that New Century overpaid or that its costs were extravagant compared to the usual costs of such services. DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S 17 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES 1. CourtCalls Courtcalls are an efficient and cost-effective way for Defendants’ counsel to attend hearings, as it significantly reduces the cost of paying attorneys to physically travel to, and appear at, hearings where they may have to bill for sitting and waiting, whereas CourtCall allows them to perform other tasks while waiting, dramatically reducing the cost of litigation. Either way, an appearance in court is necessary, and this is the cheapest way to do so (Amir Decl., Exh. 3.) 2. Attorney/Messenger Service Courier, messenger, and overnight mail charges are recoverable. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, subd. (c)(4); see Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 24 Cal. App. 4th 761, 776 [holding messenger and courier charges are recoverable]; Nelson, 72 Cal. 25 App. 4th at p. 132 [Messenger fees “may be allowed in the discretion of the court”].) Messenger fees related to trial preparation in particular, such as filing documents and complying with document demands, are recoverable. (Ladas, 19 Cal. App. 4th at p. 776.) The party seeking to tax costs has the burden of establishing that claimed costs for courier and messenger services, incurred for filing documents with the court and complying with document demands, were excessive. (See id.) The charges here were all reasonably incurred to effectuate proper service of documents, including opposition briefing and various pretrial filings. (Amir Decl., Exh. 11.) Plaintiff provides no evidence that he ever requested, or would have even accepted, service of process via fax. 3. Travel Expenses Travel expenses are allowable as costs under section 1033.5. (See Thon v. Thompson (1994) 29 Cal. App. 4th 1546, 1549.) New Century seeks recovery of these amounts for travel and parking related to witnesses attending depositions and meeting with their attorneys or with similar vehicles for exemplar testing in preparation for their depositions noticed by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs cite no basis to contradict New Century’s request and simply concludes, without any foundation, that the costs are not recoverable. The amounts sought were necessary, small, and reasonable for attending and preparing for the attendance of a deposition. In addition to the prima facie evidence in the Memorandum of Costs, New Century also submits invoices. (Amir Decl., Exh. 9.) DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S 18 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES New Century’s $42.70 request for October 5, 2018, was to recover the parking validation Plaintiffs’ expert, Darrell Blasjo, demanded at his deposition. Defendants’ counsel do not own the Downtown Los Angeles building their offices is located in, and anyone who parks there has to pay for parking. (Amir Decl., Exh. 9.) The “out-of-town” travel expense incurred by New Century for Jose Conde, co-defendant BMW NA’s PMQ, was necessary because Mr. Conde was based out of Sacramento at the time, making the travel necessary for his preparation. (Amir Decl., Exh. 9.) 4. Good-Faith Mediation Costs The Court has discretion to allow New Century to recover its $525 in mediation costs. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, subdivision (c)(4).) New Century should be allowed to recover its portion of the mediation costs because it acted in good faith in engaging in those mediations while Plaintiffs refused to do the same. The fact that Plaintiffs were served with that incredible section 998 Offer in July of 2017, followed by numerous attempts by Defendants to settle early, including at mediation, and the fact that Plaintiffs refused to budge over the four-years of litigation, including failing to settle at mediation, then ultimately recovered nothing, is undeniable proof that Plaintiffs acted in bad faith throughout this litigation and should at least repay Defendants for their good-faith efforts at resolving this case in mediation. Plaintiff cites no authority for his contention that New Century cannot recover its portion of mediation costs where the parties agreed to split them at the time, and Plaintiffs would certainly be requesting recovery of their portion of mediation costs had they prevailed at trial. (Amir Decl., Exh. 12.) III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, as well as for such other and further reasons as may be adduced upon the hearing of Plaintiffs’ motion, New Century respectfully asks that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Tax Costs be denied, and that New Century be allowed their costs in the sum of $14,183.05. DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S 19 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS MORGAN, LEWIS Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 & Dated: May 29, 2020 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Lisa Weddle Abtin Amir By pi A Abtin Amir Attorneys for Defendants BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC and NEW CENTURY ALHAMBRA AUTOMOBILES, INC. dba NEW CENTURY BMW 20 DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORGAN, LEWIS & Bockius LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANGELES PROOF OF SERVICE I, Tyler Patton, declare: I am a resident of the State of California and employed in Los Angeles County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071-3132. On May 29, 2020, I served a copy of the within document(s): DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: the parties listed below were served electronically with the document(s) listed above by e-mailed PDF files. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. My electronic notification address is 300 S. Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071. My email address is tyler.patton @morganlews.com Richard M. Wirtz, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Amy Rotman, Esq. David Hong and Kandice Ro WIRTZ LAW APC 4370 La Jolla Village Dr., Ste. 800 San Diego, CA 92122 Email: rwirtz @ wirtzlaw.com arotman @wirtzlaw.com revans @wirtzlaw.com amunoz @wirtzlaw.com dinscore @wirtzlaw.com ebarns @wirtzlaw.com Executed on May 29, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. -- a = Tyler Patton DEFENDANT NEW CENTURY BMW'S 21 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 2/18/2020 MOTION TO TAX COSTS
