Reply_plaintiffs_reply_memorandum_in_support_of_motion_to_strike_costs_asserted_by_defendant_willdan_engineering_or_in_the_alternative_to_tax_costsReplyCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.July 17, 2017Electronically FILED by Sjyperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 06/17/2020 12:07 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by D. Luu,Deputy Clerk 1 [{HINMAN LAW GROUP, P.C. JOHN S. HINMAN, State Bar No. 265581 2 || john@hinmanlawgroup.com SETH E. WORKMAN, State Bar No. 289212 3 [| seth@hinmanlawgroup.com 4510 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 400 4 || Long Beach, CA 90804 Telephone: (562) 228-1375 5 || Facsimile: (562) 228-1376 6 || Attorneys for Plaintiffs, LIVIER RAMIREZ, NADIA RAMIREZ, EFRAIN RAMIREZ and ALEX RAMIREZ 7 8 [| HODES MILMAN, LLP JEFFREY A. MILMAN, State Bar No. 99072 9 || BENJAMIN T. IKUTA, State Bar No. 260878 bikuta@hml.law 10 [| 9210 Irvine Center Drive J Irvine, CA 92618 A 11 || Telephone: (949) 640-8222 ar. = Facsimile: (949) 336-8114 Dizz 12 C:zE a Attorneys for Plaintiffs, GABRIEL RAMIREZ and JASON ANDREW RAMIREZ a2 pg 13 O Z 5 & = £32 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA > S2315 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -- SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT <<} 1s > = Z 17 || GABRIEL RAMIREZ, NADIA RAMIREZ, Case No.: BC668662 = EFRAIN RAMIREZ, ALEX RAMIREZ and , 18 JASON ANDREW RAMIREZ, individuals, PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM d LIVIER RAMIREZ, individually and as | yoWrP ORT OF MOTION TQ STRIKE 19 || 22 a" : y COSTS ASSERTED BY DEFENDANT, successor in interest to Decedent ROSA WILLDAN ENGINEERING OR, IN THE 20 || MARIA SALAZAR, ALTERNATIVE, TO TAX COSTS 41 Plaintiffs DATE: June 25, 2020 2 Vv. TIME: 10:00 a.m. DEPT.: A 23 ASUNCION GARCIA, an individual; CITY OF PARAMOUNT, an entity; STATE OF 24 CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, ACTION FILED: JULY 17,2017 TRIAL DATE: OCTOBER 5,2020 25 Defendants JUDGE: HON. MAURICE A. LEITER DEPT: A 26 Plaintiffs, GABRIEL RAMIREZ, JASON ANDREW RAMIREZ, LIVIER RAMIREZ, 27 || NADIA RAMIREZ, EFRAIN RAMIREZ, and ALEX RAMIREZ hereby submit the following reply 28 || memorandum in support of their Motion to Strike Costs Asserted by Defendant, Willdan Engineering. 1 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE COSTS BY WILLDAN H I N M A N L A W G R O U P , P. C. 45 10 E. Pa ci fi c Co as t Hw y. , Su it e 40 0 Lo ng Be ac h, Ca li fo rn ia , 90 80 4 Ph on e: 56 2. 22 8. 13 75 Fa x: 56 2. 22 8. 13 76 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 5) 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES What is striking from the opposition of Willdan Engineering, Inc. (“Willdan”) is that it reflects the extremely limited amount of work involved in Willdan’s defense in this case. Willdan argues that it was dismissed in this action based on “law [that] is clear and unequivocal.” (Opposition at p. 17.) While Plaintiffs dispute that characterization, Plaintiffs concede that the legal issue was relatively simple. As explained below, costs should be stricken in their entirety due to Willdan’s failure to articulate, explain, or itemize any of the expenses in its memorandum. In the alternative, all but the $508.61 for Court filing fees should be stricken. After failing to provide any explanation for its costs in its Memorandum of Costs, it appears that Willdan is asserting the following expenses: e $557.00 for Court Reporter fees for a hearing that did not happen e $508.61 for filing fees for Demurrer and First Appearance e $134.38 for travel to a deposition located in Santa Fe Springs, 15 miles from Willdan’s counsel’s office. Willdan’s counsel did not ask a single question at deposition and did not order a copy of the transcript. e $180.85 for unspecified fees for electronic filing or service e $152.50 for a courier to deliver copies of Willdan’s demurrer and reply First, to be clear, Plaintiffs seek to strike Willdan’s costs in their entirety due to the failure to include a Memorandum of Costs on worksheet MC-011 or any itemization, substantiation, or even explanation as to the costs incurred in this case. Willdan criticizes Plaintiffs, stating “[t]he burden is upon the party seeking to tax costs to affirmatively demonstrate that any claimed costs are not reasonable and necessary.” (Opposition at p. 4:6-7.) However, since Willdan did not explain its costs whatsoever, this made it impossible for Plaintiff to challenge (or even assess) the costs asserted by Willdan. Willdan’s attempt to rectify this failure by attaching a worksheet MC-011 should not be considered by the Court. Plaintiffs were unable to challenge or assess the costs in its opening papers. Frankly, Plaintiffs believe that Willdan’s refusal to attach a MC-011 or otherwise explain its costs 2 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE COSTS BY WILLDAN H I N M A N L A W G R O U P , P. C. 45 10 E. Pa ci fi c Co as t Hw y. , Su it e 40 0 Lo ng Be ac h, Ca li fo rn ia , 90 80 4 Ph on e: 56 2. 22 8. 13 75 Fa x: 56 2. 22 8. 13 76 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 5) 23 24 25 26 27 28 was intentional because it revealed how truly little work was performed defending this case. This would be inconsistent with Willdan’s outrageous, if not outright fraudulent, motion for nearly $84,000 in attorney fees that could not have possibly been incurred. Willdan now withdraws $412.55 asserted in the previously unexplained “other” section. Yet, Willdan still asserts that $152.50 of the “other” costs should be awarded as courier/messenger fees. However, this does not add up to $570.16 in the amounts asserted as “other” costs. This is exactly the problem in failing to articulate expenses in the memorandum of costs and it is unclear what Willdan is actually asserting as costs in this case. Moreover, Plaintiffs request that this Court exercise its discretion and strike the $152.50 in courier/messenger fees. As explained by Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 132, “[m]essenger fees are not expressly authorized by statute, but may be allowed in the discretion of the court.” In Nelson, the trial court “found the messenger filings to be of doubtful necessity and unreasonable on their face, when compared to the probable cost of alternatives such as mail, Federal Express, or personal filing, in view of the size of the very large firm representing [the defendant].” (Ibid.) As such, “[t]he burden was therefore properly placed upon [the defendant], which provided no evidence that the messenger charges were reasonable or necessary.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, the messenger fees were appropriately stricken. For the $557 in Court Reporter Fees for a hearing that did not happen, Willdan tries to gaslight Plaintiffs and incredulously suggests that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s waiting 40 minutes to submit on a tentative ruling after it was first published in the afternoon somehow resulted in these fees. What is far more likely is that Willdan hired the Court Reporter prior to the tentative ruling even being published. In any event, the hearing did not happen. It is evident that when all parties submitted on the tentative ruling and did not seek a hearing, the ordering of a court reporter was not “reasonably necessary” under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(c)(2). (See also Perko's Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 243.) The amount is also not reasonable for a hearing that did not even happen. Indeed, as established by Government Code section 68086(a)(1), hearings anticipated to last less than an hour are to be charged at $30. 3 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE COSTS BY WILLDAN H I N M A N L A W G R O U P , P. C. 45 10 E. Pa ci fi c Co as t Hw y. , Su it e 40 0 Lo ng Be ac h, Ca li fo rn ia , 90 80 4 Ph on e: 56 2. 22 8. 13 75 Fa x: 56 2. 22 8. 13 76 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 5) 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next, Willdan initially charged $134.38 for “Deposition costs” under section 4 of the Memorandum of Costs (Summary). Now, without any explanation, receipts, or invoices, Willdan charged $134.38 for “travel” to the deposition of the City of Santa Fe Springs’ Person Most Qualified. Even apart from the fact that this deposition had nothing to do with Willdan’s defense of the case, Willdan’s counsel’s office is only 15 miles away from the deposition. “[I]f the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. App.4th 761, 774.) As Willdan does not provide any evidence at all as to how they spent $134.38 for traveling 15 miles to a deposition, this amount should be taxed. (See Id. [trial court erred in allowing recovery of “Local Travel Expenses” without further explanation].) The same is true for the $180.85 in unspecified fees for electronic filing or service. Previously, this was simply lumped in as “other.” However, even after being challenged, Willdan does not provide any documentation or receipts to show that this was actually paid or that it was reasonably necessary. Willdan does not even identify what documents pertained to this charge. In sum, Willdan’s costs should be stricken in their entirety due to Willdan’s failure to file a proper Memorandum of Costs. In the alternative, Willdan’s costs should be reduced to $508.61, reflecting the filing fees of the first appearance and demurrer. DATED: June 17,2020 HINMAN LAW GROUP, P.C. JOHN S. HINMAN SETH E. WORKMAN Attorneys for Plaintiffs LIVIER RAMIREZ, NADIA RAMIREZ, EFRAIN RAMIREZ and ALEX RAMIREZ DATED: June 17,2020 HODES MILMAN, LLP By: / Com Sd BENJAMIN T. IKUTA Attorney for Plaintiffs GABRIEL RAMIREZ and JASON ANDREW RAMIREZ 4 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE COSTS BY WILLDAN H I N M A N L A W G R O U P , P. C. 45 10 E. Pa ci fi c Co as t Hw y. , Su it e 40 0 Lo ng Be ac h, Ca li fo rn ia , 90 80 4 Ph on e: 56 2. 22 8. 13 75 Fa x: 56 2. 22 8. 13 76 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 5) 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am over the age of 18, not a party to this action, and am employed by Hinman Law Group, P.C. in Los Angeles County, California, at 4510 E Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 400, Long Beach, CA 90804. On June 17, 2020, I served the foregoing document(s): PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE COSTS ASSERTED BY DEFENDANT, WILLDAN ENGINEERING OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TAX COSTS on the interested parties in this action as follows: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST [] By United States Mail (CCP §§ 1013(a), et seq.): I enclosed said document(s) in a sealed envelope or package to each addressee. I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. Iam readily familiar with the firm’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, with postage fully prepaid. [] By Overnight Delivery/Express Mail (CCP §§ 1013(c)(d), et seq.): I enclosed said document(s) in a sealed envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier to each addressee. I placed the envelope or package, delivery fees paid for, for collection and overnight delivery at any office or regularly utilized drop box maintained by the express service carrier. [] By Fax Transmission (CRC 2.306): Based on a written agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed said document(s) to each addressee’s fax number. The facsimile machine that I utilized, (562) 228-1376, complied with the California Rules of Court, Rule 2.306, and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2.306(h), I caused the machine to print a record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to the original of this proof of service. x By Electronic Service (CRC 2.251): Pursuant to the order of the Los Angeles Superior Court requiring mandatory e-filing in this matter and pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.251(¢c)(3), I caused the aforementioned document(s) to be served upon the interested party(ies) by electronic means from e-mail address laurie@hinmanlawgroup.com to each addressee’s electronic service address as set forth on the service list below. [1] By Personal Service (CCP § 1011): I personally delivered said document(s) to each addressee, either personally to the attorney or to the attorney’s office; or to the party or at the party’s residence with someone 18 years or older. [] By Messenger Service: | transmitted said document(s) to a professional messenger service, specifying same day personal service to each addressee. A declaration of messenger certifying personal service will be filed pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1300(c). 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, 2020 in Long Beach, California. pa ( 2 Ne [AURIE BAKER J Re. - Se 5 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE COSTS BY WILLDAN H I N M A N L A W G R O U P , P. C. 45 10 E. Pa ci fi c Co as t Hw y. , Su it e 40 0 Lo ng Be ac h, Ca li fo rn ia , 90 80 4 Ph on e: 56 2. 22 8. 13 75 Fa x: 56 2. 22 8. 13 76 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 5) 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST Gabriel Ramirez, et al. v. Asuncion Garcia, et al. Los Angeles County Superior Court, South Central District Case No. BC668662 David M. Ferrante-Alan WESIERSKI & ZUREK LLP 100 Corson St, Ste 300 Pasadena, CA 91103 P: (213) 627-2300 / F: (213) 629-2725 dferrante-alan@wzllp.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant, CITY OF PARAMOUNT Paul A. Bigley Matthew S. Jones Dhave K. Balatero FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 550 S. Hope St, 22" Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 P: (213) 615-7000 / F: (213) 615-7100 mjones@fmglaw.com dbalatero@fmglaw.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant ASUNCION G. GARCIA Scott C. Haith Christopher Bagnaschi LAW OFFICES OF HAITH BAGNASCHI, LLP 27240 Turnberry Lane, Ste. 200 Valencia, CA 91355 P: (661) 362-0744 / F: (661) 362-0745 shaith@hblaw-llp.com cb@hblaw-llp.com Attorneys for Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant, CITY OF PARAMOUNT Thomas W. Shaver., Esq. Alex Silva Van Vo, Esq. SHAVER, KORFF & CASTRONOVO, LLP 16255 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 580 Encino, CA 91436 P: (818) 905-6001 / F: (818) 905-6004 tws@skc-law.com asv(@skc-law.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant EXPERT PLANT CARE, INC. Craig J. Mariam, Esq. John Cogger, Esq. GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 633 W. Fifth Street, 52" Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 P: (213) 334-7146 / F: (213) 680-4470 cmariam@grsm.com jcogger(@grsm.com Attorneys for Defendant, WILLDAN ENGINEERING 6 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE COSTS BY WILLDAN