Reply Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum In Support of Motion To Tax Costs Claimed By Defendant City of Paramount

Reply

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.July 17, 2017

Electronically FILED by Syperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 06/17/2020 12:02 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by D. Rojas,Deputy Clerk 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 HINMAN LAW GROUP, P.C. JOHN S. HINMAN, State Bar No. 265581 john@hinmanlawgroup.com SETH E. WORKMAN, State Bar No. 289212 seth@hinmanlawgroup.com 4510 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 400 Long Beach, CA 90804 Telephone: (562) 228-1375 Facsimile: (562) 228-1376 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, LIVIER RAMIREZ, NADIA RAMIREZ, EFRAIN RAMIREZ and ALEX RAMIREZ HODES MILMAN, LLP JEFFREY A. MILMAN, State Bar No. 99072 BENJAMIN T. IKUTA, State Bar No. 260878 bikuta@hml.law 9210 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 640-8222 Facsimile: (949) 336-8114 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, GABRIEL RAMIREZ and JASON ANDREW RAMIREZ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT GABRIEL RAMIREZ, NADIA RAMIREZ, Case No.: BC668662 EFRAIN RAMIREZ, ALEX RAMIREZ and JASON ANDREW RAMIREZ, individuals, and LIVIER RAMIREZ, individually and as successor in interest to Decedent ROSA MARIA SALAZAR, Plaintiffs Vv. ASUNCION GARCIA, an individual; CITY OF PARAMOUNT, an entity; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS CLAIMED BY DEFENDANT, CITY OF PARAMOUNT DATE: June 25, 2020 TIME: 10:00 a.m. DEPT.: A ACTION FILED: JULY 17,2017 TRIAL DATE: OCTOBER 5,2020 JUDGE: HON. MAURICE A. LEITER DEPT: A Plaintiffs, GABRIEL RAMIREZ, JASON ANDREW RAMIREZ, LIVIER RAMIREZ, NADIA RAMIREZ, EFRAIN RAMIREZ, and ALEX RAMIREZ hereby submit the following reply memorandum in support of their Motion to Tax Costs Claimed by Defendant, City of Paramount. PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS BY CITY OF PARAMOUNT 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 It is true that the initial “burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that were not reasonable or necessary.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) However, “if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.” (/bid.) Indeed, even a legal memorandum of points and authorities seeking to tax costs without any affidavit or evidence is sufficient to shift the burden to the defense to show that the costs were reasonable and necessary. (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 624.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(c)(2), costs expended that are “merely convenient or beneficial” are not recoverable. (See also Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 775 [holding trial court erred in failing to strike costs that were “merely convenient or beneficial rather” than “reasonably necessary.”].) (/bid.) Lastly, the asserted costs must be “reasonable in amount” under section 1033.5(b)(3). In sum, “[e]ven costs otherwise ‘allowable as a matter of right’ may be disallowed if the court determines they were not “reasonably necessary.” Likewise, the court has power to reduce the amount of any cost item to an amount that is “reasonable.” (Wegner et al., Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Trials & Ev. [The Rutter Guide 2019] at Ch. 17-D, 9 17:302 [emphasis in original and citing Perko's Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal. App.4th 238, 243.) Here, Plaintiffs do not dispute that the City of Paramount was the prevailing party. The City did not prevail in establishing that the subject intersection was not unsafe or dangerous. Rather, the City prevailed on February 25, 2020, under the Design Immunity under Government Code section 830.6. Importantly, on the same day, the City also prevailed against Asuncion Garcia in relation to his cross-complaint but did not serve a memorandum of costs against Mr. Garcia. As explained below, the following asserted costs were either not “reasonably necessary,” not “reasonable in amount,” or prohibited as a matter of law. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Tax Costs Should be granted and the amounts should be reduced. 1 1 2 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS BY CITY OF PARAMOUNT 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 A. “Photocopies” The City now acknowledges that $1,446.55 of the asserted $2,103.95 is not recoverable as costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(b)(3). While Plaintiffs appreciate the City’s concession, the remainder of the costs should also be reduced. Most importantly, the City’s invoices and expenses in Exhibit 2 do not explain or show that $567.40 was spent on Exhibit Photocopies. The attorney declaration provides no clarity either. The amounts in Exhibit 2 do not appear to add up to $567.40 and there is no explanation as to the exhibits. For example, it is unclear if any of the photocopied exhibits were in relation to pleadings or motions relating to Asuncion Garcia’s Cross-Complaint against the City or the City’s opposition to Mr. Garcia’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas. It is unclear if any of the photocopied exhibits were in relation to the City’s own cross-complaint against Asuncion Garcia or its cross-complaint against Expert Plant Care. Indeed, the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on November 14, 2019, even when including pages for declarations and CVs, contained approximately 359 pages of evidence or judicially-noticeable documents. Moreover, only a portion of these exhibits were utilized in relation to the Design Immunity claim under section 830.6. In the alternative, given that it appears only approximately 359 pages of photocopied exhibits were utilized in the Motion for Summary Judgment that disposed of this action, Plaintiffs request that the total photocopying expenses be reduced to $89.75. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(13), costs for photocopies of exhibits are only recoverable “if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact.” (Ibid.) As such, only those exhibits that were used in conjunction with the Motion for Summary Judgment should be recoverable. In relation to copying medical records, the legislature has determined that “reasonable costs” is “ten cents ($.10) per page for standard reproduction of documents of a size 8 %2 by 14 inches of less.” (Evid. Code § 1158(e)(2). While these were not medical records, Plaintiffs assert that reasonable copying costs should not have exceeded $.25 per page. Since only 359 pages related to helping to aid the trier of fact, the costs should be reduced to $89.75. 1 3 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS BY CITY OF PARAMOUNT 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 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 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 5) 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. “Second Image National, LLC” For the first time, which was not explained at all in the City’s memorandum of costs, apparently Second Image was utilized as a deposition subpoena for business records. However, the City mislabeled these costs as unexplained “Other” in section 16 rather than as “Deposition costs” in section 4. This was likely intentional, as the majority of the charges from Second Image was not in relation to subpoenaed records, to pay witness fees, or to provide the requisite notice but rather to photocopy records. It was also extremely vague, which made it difficult for Plaintiffs to challenge in Plaintiffs’ opening motion to tax costs. (See City’s Opposition at p. 7:14-16 [“Plaintiffs have made little showing, as to any of the Second Image invoices, that they were unnecessary to the litigation, as is the Plaintiffs’ burden to do s0.”].) Indeed, in section 16, the City asserted an amount of $4,744.24 with absolutely no explanation other than “Second Image National, LLC” and with no invoices or receipts. In Naser v. Lakeridge Athletic Club (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 571, 576, the Court of Appeal noted that “obtaining business records through a deposition subpoena is a ‘deposition’ within the plain meaning of the Civil Discovery Act.” Indeed, Code of Civil Procedure sections 2020.020 and 2020.410 as well as Judicial Council of California form SUBP-010 repeatedly refer to “deposition subpoenas.” The City’s unexplained erroneous labeling of the costs warrants eliminating these costs in their entirety. In the alternative, the amounts asserted to “Second Image National, LLC” should be reduced. First, $352.60 was spent in relation to three separate subpoenas all directed at Geico Insurance that had nothing to do with this action and, rather, to the Cross-Complaint of Defendant driver, Asuncion Garcia against the City and/or the City’s Cross-Complaint against Asuncion Garcia. Geico Insurance was Asuncion Garcia’s Automobile Liability Insurance Carrier. Indeed, the subpoenaing of these Geico records caused a contentious law and motion battle in relation to a Motion to Quash these records. On January 23, 2020, the Court denied the motion as moot and denied sanctions, as shown by the screenshot of the below minute order: 4 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS BY CITY OF PARAMOUNT 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 a ~ N O N W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ¢. Motion to Quash Cross-Defendant City of Paramount requested documents from Cross-Complainant Garcia's insurer, Geico. Cross-Complainant Garcia objected, arguing in the motion to quash that the request sought privileged material. However, Geico was not informed of the motion to quash before it produced the requested documents. Cross-Complainant Garcia's counsel has reviewed the documents and found that they do not include any privileged documents. (Opp. Exh. A.) The Reply then morphs this motion into a request for sanctions because counsel for Cross-Defendant sent the produced documents to all of the parties in this action. Minute Order - Page 4 of § SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division South Central District, Compton Courthouse, Department A BC668662 January 23, 2020 GABRIEL RAMIREZ ET AL VS ASUNCION GARCIA ET AL 9:00 AM Judge: Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka CSR: None Judicial Assistant: Aveline Santiago ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: Kim Johnson Deputy Sheriff: None The Court will not issue sanctions without affording the other party & proper mechanism to oppose. This motion to quash is now moot. If Cross-Complainant wishes to pursue the matter, he will need to do so by filing a separate motion for discovery sanctions, All subsequent motions must comply with this Court's rules, which require an informal discovery conference before a discovery motion is heard. The City could have sought costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 against Mr. Garcia but made the decision not to. Plaintiffs should not be burdened with these costs that should have been asserted against Mr. Garcia and were irrelevant as to Plaintiffs’ action against the City. Second Image National, LLC also charged a massive amount of $3,498.28 in relation to subpoenas directed at medical records, including the following: e St. Francis Medical Center - $2,394.84, which included $1,374.75 in copying costs and $887.52 in index/date tag costs. e St. Francis Medical Center Radiology Department - $470.63, which included $300 to copy 25 films. e Kaiser Permanente - $362.81, which included $120.50 in copying costs and $114.12 in index/date tag costs. Decedent fought to stay alive for several weeks after the crash. She had injuries to multiple organs, including her kidneys, liver, and both intestines. Decedent suffered severe sepsis, J PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS BY CITY OF PARAMOUNT 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 mesenteric vessel injury, traumatic ventral hernia, and hemorrhagic shock. Decedent had a small- bowel resection, colon resection, and several other surgeries in a desperate attempt to repair the internal bleeding and trauma caused by the incident. Despite her efforts, she passed away on July 15, 2016, 17 days after the collision. However, it was never in dispute that Decedent passed away as a direct result of the injuries suffered in the crash. Even more importantly, these records were not (and never were) reasonably necessary to the City’s defense. The City did not attach, or even address, these records in its Motion for Summary Judgment. The records had nothing to do with the City’s defense in the case. As such, the $3,498.28 should be stricken as costs. In the alternative, those costs that were for photocopying and indexing the records (as opposed to subpoenaing the records) should be stricken as improper photocopying costs that are not exhibits. Of the $3,498.28 for these medical records, $2,796.89 ($1795.25 for photocopying and $1,001.64 for indexing) were related to inappropriate photocopying costs. C. Westlaw Research The City asks this Court to ignore established California authority in Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. App.4th 761, 774 and instead follow two unpublished lower federal court decisions. As explained by the California Supreme Court: Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the justice and municipal courts and upon all the superior courts of this state, and this is so whether or not the superior court is acting as a trial or appellate court. Courts exercising inferior jurisdiction must accept the law declared by courts of superior jurisdiction. It is not their function to attempt to overrule decisions of a higher court. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) In other words, “[a] court of appeal decision must be followed by all superior courts, regardless of which appellate district rendered the opinion.” (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. App. & Writs [The Rutter Guide 2019] at Ch. 14-D, §14:193; Gwartz v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 480, 481 [“[S]ometimes it seems as though we have to remind the lower court there is a judicial pecking order when it comes to the interpretation of statutes.”].) Indeed, even Federal 6 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS BY CITY OF PARAMOUNT 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 Courts recognize that lower California courts are bound by decisions issued by any California Court of Appeal. (See, e.g., Hart v. Massanari (9th Cir. 2001) 266 F.3d 1155, 1174 [“In California, for example, an opinion by one of the courts of appeal is binding on all trial courts in the state, not merely those in the same district.”].) On the other hand, “lower federal court decisions have no precedential effect in California state courts on issues of state law.” (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. App. & Writs [The Rutter Guide 2019] at Ch. 14-D, 914:194.2a; see also Haynes v. EMC Mortgage Corp. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 329, 335 [“We, of course, are not bound by federal decisions on matters of state law.”].) Moreover, unpublished federal decisions are “particularly unpersuasive authority.” (Roskind v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. (2000) 80 Cal. App.4th 345, 355 and 355 fn.7 [refusing to follow an unpublished Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and urging the California Supreme Court to issue a rule that would disallow citation to unpublished federal authority.].) The holding in Ladas as to Computer Legal Research being unrecoverable as costs was clear and is binding precedent on this Court. Moreover, Westlaw provides far more services than legal research, including background searches and other investigatory tools. The City’s opposition provides no clarity as to the nature of the Westlaw searches. Regardless, Ladas controls and these costs should be stricken. D. Other Objectionable Costs The $380.08 to “NRC Discovery,” which was previously unexplained, now appears to be for copying and scanning costs. $108 was charged on 1/25/19 for “oversize copies,” $23.88 on 1/25/19 for “oversize scan,” “$155.22 on 1/8/19 for “oversize scan” and $60 for “Master CD” and “Master Flash Drive.” It is now apparent that these are improperly asserted copying costs. No oversized exhibits were presented at any time in this case and this cost should be stricken. The City appropriately produced the invoices for the depositions. Plaintiffs contend that ordering of the videotapes was not necessary for the depositions, which totaled $1,092.22. As for the $124.10 for two separate attorneys to appear at a deposition, it is not explained how $124.10 was calculated to appear at a deposition that was 23 miles from the City’s counsel’s office. 7 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS BY CITY OF PARAMOUNT 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 Moreover, particularly given that the City did not ask a single question at the deposition and the deposition was not referenced in the motion for summary judgment, it was not necessary for both attorneys to attend the deposition. DATED: June 17,2020 HINMAN LAW GROUP, P.C. blow (a J OHN S. HINMAN SETH E. WORKMAN Attorneys for Plaintiffs LIVIER RAMIREZ, NADIA RAMIREZ, EFRAIN RAMIREZ and ALEX RAMIREZ By: DATED: June 17, 2020 HODES MILMAN, LLP Pope Soi BENJAMIN T. Los Attorney for Plaintiffs GABRIEL RAMIREZ and JASON ANDREW RAMIREZ 8 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS BY CITY OF PARAMOUNT 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 TAX COSTS CLAIMED BY DEFENDANT, CITY OF PARAMOUNT on the interested parties in this action as follows: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST [1] 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. [] 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. 7 ) \ 4 LAURIE BAKER y, - LY 9 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS BY CITY OF PARAMOUNT 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 10 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS BY CITY OF PARAMOUNT