Motion_to_tax_costs

Motion

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.February 6, 2018

Electronically FILED by Supe] ~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 or Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 04/10/2020 01:04 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Boyadzhyan,Deputy Clerk WALTER J. LACK, ESQ (SBN 57550) ANDREW M. JACOBSON, ESQ (SBN 286330) CHRISTOPHER A. KANNE, ESQ (SBN 289531) ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067-4113 Telephone: (310) 552-3800 Facsimile: (310) 552-9434 ARDY PIRNIA, ESQ (SBN 288805) THE PIRNIA LAW GROUP 8549 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1193 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Telephone: (844) 747-5294 Facsimile: (877) 858-7268 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Anthony Davis SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT ANTHONY DAVIS, Case No. BC692726 Trial Judge: Hon. James A. Kaddo, Dept. 1 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION VS. AND MOTION TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND TYLER RAY HARANO, RANDALL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT HARANO, CHARLANE HARANO, and THEREOF; DECLARATION OF DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, ANDREW M. JACOBSON Defendants. TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff, ANTHONY DAVIS (“Plaintiff”), will and hereby does move this Court, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b) and California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 998 and 1033.5, for an order striking certain costs claimed by Defendants TYLER RAY HARANO, RANDALL HARANO, and CHARLANE HARANO, in their Memorandum of Costs The Motion will be based upon this notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, served and filed herewith, any further Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed in support of the Motion, the papers and records on file herein, and upon such oral and 440551 1 “"PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND | AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. JACOBSON AN nn BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of hearing. Dated: April 10, 2020 ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK 440551 "PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND | By: /s/ Andrew M. Jacobson WALTER J. LACK ANDREW M. JACOBSON CHRISTOPHER A. KANNE Attorneys for Plaintiff, Anthony Davis 2 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. JACOBSON ~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 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Tyler Ray Harano, in outrageous fashion, seeks $111, 183.78 in cost from Plaintiff, Anthony Davis. Specifically, Defendant seeks $31,270.71 in deposition costs, $13,094.82 in service of process costs, $51,768.98 in alleged witness fees, $11,893.60 in Court reporter fees and $2,037.60 in models, enlargements, and exhibit copies (see, Defendant’s Memorandum of Costs, Declaration of Andrew M. Jacobson (“Jacobson Decl.”) 92, Exhibit 1). Defendant’s claimed costs are excessive, unreasonable, and unlawful. Defendant failed to inform the Court that Defendant served its §998 Offer on December 23, 2019, approximately one month before trial was set to originally begin on January 28, 2020. Defendant is only entitled to expert cost incurred from that date. Defendant has not broken down the expert cost in relation to expert work after December 23, 2019. Defendant also seeks expert cost for an expert that it de-designated and did not call at trial, Christopher Furbish (see, Jacobson Decl. {3, Exhibit 2, Defendant’s 998, Exhibit 3, Defendant’s de-designation of experts). Plaintiff recognizes that Defendant may be entitled to be reimbursed for their reasonable costs, in the discretion of the Court, such as filing fees and jury fees, but Defendant’s current request is simply excessive and unreasonable. As such, Plaintiff seeks to tax specific items in the Memorandum of Costs as outlined below. II. NOT ALL COSTS INCURRED BY THE DEFENDANT ARE RECOVERABLE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT The general rule regarding the awarding of costs is encompassed in California Code of Civil Procedure §1032 which provides that a prevailing party is entitled to recover costs in any action or proceeding “. . . except as otherwise expressly provided by statute.” California Code of Civil Procedure, §1032(b). In order to clarify exactly what costs are recoverable, the California legislature enacted Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5, which specifies those costs that are recoverable, those costs that are not recoverable, and the specific parameters governing the award of costs. Moreover, before a Court awards any costs to a prevailing party pursuant to 440551 3 “"PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND | AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. JACOBSON ~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 §1033.5, the Court has a duty to determine whether a particular item of cost is reasonable in need and amount (Thon v. Thompson (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1548). Costs “merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation” are disallowed (see, California Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5(c)(2); see also, Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 129). Furthermore, because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute, a Court has no discretion to award costs which are not specifically authorized pursuant to statute (Ladas v. California State Auto Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774). As such, in order to be a recoverable cost pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(c)(2) & (3), the cost must be: 1. reasonable in amount; and 2. reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. Defendant’s also claim expert witness costs based upon California Code of Civil Procedure §998. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §998(c)(1), the Defendant may recover a reasonable sum to cover costs of the services of expert witnesses who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in the preparation for trial by the Defendant. The award of expert witness expenses is discretionary, not automatic (see, Santantonio v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co (1994) 25 CA4th 102, 121-124). However, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §998(c)(1), the Defendant shall not recover his or her pre-offer costs and Plaintiff is only obligated to pay the Defendant’s costs from the time of the offer. The party seeking to tax costs has the initial burden of objecting to the contested costs (Ladas, supra, at 774). Once the party seeking to tax the costs objects to the contested cost items, the burden is shifted to the prevailing party to prove the reasonableness of both the need and the amount of the requested expense (Id. at 774). III. DEFENDANT’S CLAIMED COSTS ARE NEITHER REASONABLE IN AMOUNT NOR REASONABLY NECESSARY TO THE CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION Plaintiff moves to tax the Memorandum of Costs filed by Defendants in this matter pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700, subdivision (b). Plaintiff claims excessive costs, claims items not allowed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5, and provides 440551 4 “"PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND | AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. JACOBSON ~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 insufficient information on certain costs to determine their legitimacy. Therefore, Plaintiff moves to tax specific items as delineated below. A. Category 11: Court Reporter Fees Defendants claim $11,893.60 in Court reporter fees (see, Exhibit 1 to Jacobson Decl. at 92). “Transcripts of Court proceedings not ordered by the Court” are specifically excluded as allowable costs (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(b)(5); Baker-Hoey, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at 599-600 (emphasis added)). When transcripts are ordered by the Court, “Court reporter fees as established by statute” are allowable as a cost item (California Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5(a)(11)). The Court did not order any transcripts to be prepared in this case. Defendants are not entitled to the costs incurred to purchase daily transcripts and thus, their claimed costs of $11,893.60, are not allowed as a matter of law. Just as important, none of the daily transcripts were referred to by Defendants during the trial and thus were not “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation” (California Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5(c)(2) & 3). Plaintiff requests that the Court tax the costs of $11,893.60, as they were not reasonably necessary to the litigation. B. Category 8: Expert Witness Fees Plaintiff objects to each of the expert fees identified in Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs identified in Category 8. The costs claimed as expert fees are in violation of Code of Civil Procedure §998(c)(1), excessive and not reasonably necessary in preparation for trial. Thus, the burden is shifted to Defendant to prove the need for incurring such costs totaling $51,768.98 (see, Jacobson Decl. 2, Exhibit 1). Although the injuries alleged in this case were severe, the case was not complicated and liability was stipulated. In fact, the record evidence included not more than 100 pages of relevant medical records and eight witness depositions, including all experts, the Plaintiff, and the Defendants. Specific objections with respect to certain expert fees claimed by these Defendants as follows: 440551 5 “"PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND | AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. JACOBSON ~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 1. Agnes Grogan, RN Defendants request reimbursement for the expert fees of Agnes Grogan, RN, for services in the amount of $3,537.50 (see, Exhibit 1 to Jacobson Decl. at 2). This amount claimed is excessive and unreasonable and the extent of her services were not reasonably necessary in the preparation of trial for the following reasons set forth below. Defendant has not identified how many hours Ms. Grogan incurred after the December 23,2019 998 Offer was served. Her testimony at trial was less than 1 hour. The alleged costs claimed by Ms. Grogan are as follows: Ms. Grogan costs/hours before §998 Offer $_ / hrs. Ms. Grogan total costs/hours before depo $__/ hrs. Ms. Grogan costs/hours after depo $_ / hrs. Ms. Grogan Total Bill $3,537.50 2, Steven Nagelberg, MD Defendant requests reimbursement for the expert fees of Steven Nagelberg, MD, for services in the amount of $26,275.00 (see, Exhibit 1 to Jacobson Decl. at 2). This amount claimed is excessive and unreasonable and the extent of his services were not reasonably necessary in the preparation of trial for the following reasons set forth below. Defendant has not identified how many hours Dr. Nagelberg incurred after the December 23, 2019, 998 Offer was served. Indeed, much of his work was conducted well before Defendant’s 998 Offer and therefore Defendant is not entitled to recover such expert cost. His testimony at trial was less than 3 hours, including a lunch break. $26,275 in expert cost for a Orthopedic surgeon expert for a run of the mill rear end stipulated liability case is highly excessive and unreasonable. The alleged costs claimed by Dr. Nagelberg are as follows: Dr. Nagelberg costs/hours before §998 Offer $__/ hrs. Dr. Nagelberg total costs/hours before depo $_ / hrs. Dr. Nagelberg costs/hours after depo $_/ hrs. Dr. Nagelberg Total Bill $26,275.00 440551 6 "PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND | AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. JACOBSON ~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 3. Stephen Rothman, MD Defendant requests reimbursement for the expert fees of Stephen Rothman, MD, for services in the amount of $9,175.00 (see, Exhibit 1 to Jacobson Decl. at 2). This amount claimed is excessive and unreasonable and the extent of his services were not reasonably necessary in the preparation of trial for the following reasons set forth below. Defendant has not identified how many hours Dr. Rothman incurred after the December 23, 2019 998 Offer was served. Indeed, much of his work was conducted well before Defendant’s 998 Offer and therefore Defendant is not entitled to recover such expert cost. His testimony at trial was less than 1 hour. He testified at trial that all he reviewed to prepare for his testimony were MRI and X-ray Films. He did not review any medical records or depositions. $9,175.00 in expert cost for a radiologist expert for a run of the mill rear end stipulated liability case is highly excessive and unreasonable. The alleged costs claimed by Dr. Rothman are as follows: Dr. Rothman costs/hours before §998 Offer $ / hrs. Dr. Rothman total costs/hours before depo $__/ hrs. Dr. Rothman costs/hours after depo $_ /__ hrs. Dr. Rothman Total Bill $9,175.00 4. Christopher Furbish Defendant requests reimbursement for the expert fees of Christopher Furbish, for services in the amount of $12,781.48 (see, Exhibit 1 to Jacobson Decl. at 2). This amount claimed is excessive and unreasonable and the extent of his services were not reasonably necessary in the preparation of trial for the following reasons set forth below. Christopher Furbish was Defendant’s biomechanical expert. He did not testify at trial and was de-designated as an expert well before Defendant’s 998 Offer was served. His deposition was never taken. Defendant clearly did not believe that he was necessary for the litigation, as they de-designated him as an expert. Like all of Defendant’s claimed expert cost, there is no breakdown as to how many hours were incurred before or after Defendant’s 998. Any expert costs for Mr. Furbish should be rejected outright. 440551 7 "PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND | AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. JACOBSON ~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 The alleged costs claimed by Mr. Furbish are as follows: Mor. Furbish costs/hours before §998 Offer $_ / hrs. Mr. Furbish total costs/hours before depo $_ / hrs. Mr. Furbish costs/hours after depo $_ /__ hrs. Mr. Furbish Total Bill $9,175.00 Plaintiff requests that the Court tax the costs of $51,768.98, as they were not reasonably necessary to the litigation and were for work done before Defendant’s December 23, 2019 998 Offer. C. Category 5: Service of Process ($13,094) Defendant seeks the exorbitant amount of $13,094.82 in service of process cost. In attachment 5(d) to its memorandum of cost, Defendant states that it paid Concept Investigations, $3,520.93 for service of trial subpoenas to various prior doctors, chiropractors, and imaging centers. It’s worth noting of the 13 trial subpoenas Defendant served and paid for, only Dr. Todd Gravori and Dr. Hekmat was called to testify at trial. Dr. Gravori was already designated as an expert by Plaintiff and Dr. Hekmat was a non-retained expert, which Defendant knew plaintiff would call to testify at trial. In sum, the service of trial subpoenas in the amount of $3,520.93 is excessive and unreasonable. Defendant also states in attachment 5(d) to its memorandum of cost that it paid Ronsin Photocopy Services $8,172.25 for “service of process for plaintiff’s medical records, bills and films and trial subpoenas.” Defendant has not provided a breakdown of those charges. There were primarily two medical providers that were at issue in this case, Hekmat Orthopedics and its associated imaging and surgery center, and ProMedSpine (Dr. Gravori) and its associated imaging and surgery center. Why Defendant would pay $8,172.25 for copies of medical records and bills for this type of case is a mystery. In any event, the amounts claimed are excessive and unreasonable. Therefore, Plaintiff request that this cost be taxed by 75%. D. Category 4: Deposition Cost, ($31,270.73) Defendant seeks $31,270.73 in deposition cost from Plaintiff. 12 depositions were taken in this case. Of those 12 depositions, the depositions of Dr. Samuel Seelig ($2,531.05), Dr. James 440551 8 "PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND | AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. JACOBSON ~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 Darmo ($1,940.65), and Dr. Jamhsid Hekmat ($4,694.52), were taken by Defendant, but the witnesses were not called to testify at trial. Therefore, their depositions were not reasonably necessary for the litigation, and highly excessive. From the onset, $9,166.22 should be taxed from the deposition costs. The rest of the deposition cost are also highly excessive. Many of these depositions did not go longer than 1 to 2 hours. Defendant would routinely purchase roughs and have the transcripts expedited when there was no need to incur that added expense. Defendant has not provided any actual bills or invoices relating to the transcribing of the depositions, but based on their cost, they appear to be excessive. Of the remaining $22,104.51 in deposition cost, Plaintiff request that remaining deposition cost be taxed by 50% to account for the excessive and unreasonable deposition transcribing charges. IV. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court exercise its discretion in an equitable manner and tax all challenged costs sought by Defendant, as set forth above. Dated: April 10, 2020 ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK By: /s/ Andrew M. Jacobson WALTER J. LACK ANDREW M. JACOBSON CHRISTOPHER A. KANNE Attorneys for Plaintiff, Anthony Davis 440551 9 "PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND | AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. JACOBSON ~N O N n e A W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. JACOBSON I, ANDREW M. JACOBSON, state and declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney, licensed to practice law in the State of California, and an attorney of record herein for Plaintiff. Unless otherwise stated, I have personal knowledge of each and all facts stated herein and could and would competently testify thereto. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs, filed on March 27, 2020, in this action. 3. Defendant served its §998 Offer on December 23, 2019, approximately one month before trial was set to originally begin on January 28, 2020. Defendant is only entitled to expert cost incurred from that date. Defendant has not broken down the expert cost in relation to expert work after December 23, 2019. Defendant also seeks expert cost for an expert that it de-designated and did not call at trial, Christopher Furbish. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s 998 Offer. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s de-designation of experts. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above iS true and correct and that this declaration was signed on this 10th day of April, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. /s/ Andrew M. Jacobson ANDREW M. JACOBSON AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. JACOBSON EXHIBIT 1 2g000/ 5848 J)TT. / AT MC-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY STATE BAR NUMBER: 201 566 FOR COURT USE ONLY NAME: Gina Y. Kandarlan-Stein FIRM NAME: Gates. Gonter. Guy. Proudfoot & Muench. LLP STREET ADDRESS: 38 Discovery. Suite 200 cir: |rvine sTATE:Ca ZIP CODE: 92618 TELEPHONE NO.: 840-753-0255 FAX NO: 949-753-0265 E-MAIL ADDRESS: gstein@aa3pmiaw.com ATTORNEY FOR (name): Defendant. Tvler Harano SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS A NGELES STREET ADDRESS: 6230 Svimar Avenue MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: Van Nuys, Ca 91401 BRANCH NAME: VAN NUYS DIVISION PLAINTIFF: ANTHONY DAVIS DEFENDANT: TYLER RAY HARANO CASE NUMBER: MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) BC92726 The following costs are requested: TOTALS 1. Filing and motion fees 506.75 Jury fees 611.30 Jury food and lodging Deposition costs 31,270. 73 Service of process 13,094.82 Attachment expenses Surety bond premiums Witness fees 51,768.98 © ® N © o a ow DN Court-ordered transcripts PH Ph PH BP © PH LH © © ©» - o . Attorney fees (enter here if contractual or statutory fees are fixed without necessity of a court determination; otherwise a noticed motion is required) 11. Court reporter fees as established by statute 11,89 3.60 12. Models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits 2,037.60 13. Interpreter fees 14. Fees for electronic filing or service 15. Fees for hosting electronic documents P € d eH PH PH 16. Other TOTAL COSTS $ 111,183.78 ) am the attorney, agent, or party who claims these costs. To the best of my knowledge and belief this mem orandum of costs is correct and these costs were necessatlly Incurred in this case. Date: March 27, 2020 GINA Y. KANDARIAN-STEIN br (Cp Gorn (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) (Proof of service on reverse) Page 1 of 2 Form Approved for Optional Use Code af Clvil Procedure, Judicial Council of California MC-010 mM EMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUM MARY) §§ 1032, 1033.5 Rev. September 1, 2017] MC-011 SHORT TITLE Davis v. Harano BC92726 CASE NUMBER: MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) 1. Filing and motion fees Paper filed Fling fee 8 Answer $ 445.00 b. Motion $ 61.75 C. $ _- d. $ e. $ fs $ g. [J Information about additional filing and motion fees is conta ined in Attachment 1g. 2. Jury fees Date a. 2/7/20 b. 2/10/20 C. d. ©. 3. Juror food: $ 4. Deposltion costs Eee & mileage $ 489.04 $ 122.26 $ $ [1] Information about additional jury fees is contained in Attachment 2e. TOTAL 1. TOTAL 2. and lodging: $ TOTAL 3, F___ 1 Name of deponent Taking Transcribing Travel Videotaping Subtotals a. Farshad Hekmat, M.D. $ 3,000.00 $ 1,052.50 $ $ $ 405250 b. James Darmo, D.C. $ 800.00 $ 1,140.65 $ $ $ 1,940.65 ¢. Todd Gravori, M.D. $ 3,900.00 $ 1,365.25 $ $ $ 5,265.25 d. Arthur Croft, D.C. $ 300000 $ 2010.13 $ $ $ 5010.13 e. [7] Information about additional deposition costs is contained in Attachment 4e. TOTAL 4. (Continued on reverse) Page 1of 5 co MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) Code frien [Rev. September 1, 2017) MC-011 SHORT TITLE CASE NUMBER: 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 186. b. Expert fees (per Code of Givil Procedure section 998) Name of witness Fee (1) Agnes Grogan, RN hours at § Ihr (2) steven Nagelberg, M.D. hours at $ Ihr (3) stephen Rothman, M.D. hours at $ /hr [® 9,175.00] (4) Christopher Furbish hours at § /hr 5 12,781.48 (5) [J Information about additional expert fees is contained in Attachment 8b(5). SUBTOTAL 80[§ 5176050 ¢. Court-ordered expert fees Name of withess Fee 0) hours at hr F___ @ hours at hr CE (3) [J Information about additional court-ordered expert fees is contained in Attach ment 8c(3). SUBTOTAL 8c TOTAL (8a, 8b, & 8c) sf 1] Court-ordered transcripts (specify): 9. F_ 1 Attorney fees (enter here if contractual or statutory fees are fixed without necessity of a court 10. Fr 1 determination; otherwise a noticed motion is required): Models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits (specify): 11. [§ $2,037.60 No Rush Reprographics - Exhibits and FSC/Exhibit Binders for plaintiff & defense counsel and cou rt Court reporter fees (as established by statute) a. (Name of reporter). Veritext 1/30/20-2/10/20 Fees: $ 11,893.80 b. (Name of reporter): Fees: $ TOTAL 12. |¥ 11,893.60 c. [J Information about additional court-reporter fees is contained in Attachment 12c. Interpreter fees a. Fees of a certified or registered interpreter for the deposition of a party or witness (Name of interpreter): Fees: $ (Name of interpreter): Fees: $ b. Fees for a qualified court interpreter authorized by the court for an indigent person represented by a qualified legal services project or a pro bono attorney (Name of interpreter): Fees: $ EP (Name of interpreter). Fees: $ ToTAL13. [1] c. [1 Information about additional court-reporter fees is contained in Attachment 13c. Fees for electronic filing or service of documents through an electronic filing service provider (enter here if required or ordered by the court): 14. 1 Fees for hosting electronic documents through an electronic filing service provider (enter here if required or ordered by the court): 15. Other (specify). 16. 1 TOTAL COSTS 5 111,183.78 (Additional information may be supplied on the reverse) MGA011 [Rev. September 1, 2017) MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) Page_ 3 of 5 MC-011 SHORT TITLE CASE NUMBER: 5. Service of process Reaqistered Name of person served Public officer process Publication Other (specify) a. James Darmo, D.C. $ $ 710.91 $ $ b. Natalie Houser, M.D. $ $ 690.73 $ $ E. $ $ $ $ d. [x] information about additional costs for service of proc ess Is contalned in Attachment 5d. TOTAL 5. 6. Attachment expenses (specify): 6. 1 7. Surety bond premiums (itemize bonds and amounts): To 8. a. Ordinary witness fees (1) (2) @) 4) ©) Name of witness Daily fee Mileage daysat___ $/day miles at ____ ¢/mile: daysat $/day milesat ___ ¢/mile: daysat___ $/day miles at _____ ¢/mile: daysat _ $/day miles at __ g/mile: daysat $/day _ milesat____ ¢/mile: (6) [1] Information about additional ordinary witness fees is contained in Attachment 8a(6). SUBTOTAL BaF | (Continued on next page) Total MC-011 [Rev. September 1, 2017] MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) Page 20of 5 MC-025 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: - DAVIS v. HARANO BC92726 ATTACHMENT (Number): 4¢_(page 4/5) (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form. ) DEPOSITION COSTS Deponent Taking Transcribing Subtotal f. Anthony Davis $990. 50 $990.50 g. Agnes Grogan, R.N. $929.34 $929.34 h. Andrew Morris. D.C. $1,500.00 $1, 346.05 $2,846.05 i. Tyler Harano $252.50 $252.50 j. Samuel Seelig, M.D. $1,350.00 $1,181.05 $2,531.05 k. Jamshid Hekmat, M.D. $3,000.00 $1,69 4.52 $4,694.52 1. Steven Nagelberg, M.D. $1,601.31 $1,601.31 m. Stephen Rothman, M.D. $1,156.93 $1,156.93 (If the item that this Attachment cancemns is made under penalty of perjury, all statement s in this Page of Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.) - (Add pages as required) Form Approved for Optional Use ATT ACHMENT www.cou rtinfo.cs.gov Judicial Council of California MC-025 [Rev. July 1, 2008] to Judicial Council Form MC-025 CASE NUMBER: SHORT TITLE: BC92726 - Davis v. Harano ATTACHMENT (Number): 5d_(page 5/5) (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) SERVICE OF PROCESS Concept Investigations $3,520.93 Service of trial subpoenas: Malek & Chahayed, Gerald G rega, Workhealth Medical, Hekmat Ortho, White Memorial, Landmark Imaging, Todd Gravori, ProHealth Imaging, DISC Radiology of Encino, Starpoint Surgery Center, United Medical Imaging, Gilbert Varela, Allied Imagin g, Beverly Hills Center Ronsin Photocopy Services ~~ $8,172.25 Service of process for plaintiff's medical records, bills and films and trial subpoenas (If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in thi s Page of Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.) (Add pages as required) FC i ATTACHMENT waysriogeor to Judicial Council Form MC-025 [Rev. July 1, 2009] GA 1E S, GO NI ER , GU Y, Pr oO uD ro OT & M U E N C H , LL P (9 49 ) 75 3- 02 55 38 DI SC OV ER Y, SU IT E 20 0 IR VI NE , CA 92 61 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17% 18 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. Tam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 38 Discovery, Suite 200, Irvine, California 92618. On, March 27, 2020, I served the foregoing document described as MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) on the interested parties in this action as set forth on the attached service list in the following manner: (XX) BY MAIL. Iam familiar with this firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, and that the correspondence shall be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1013a. Iam aware that on a motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing affidavit. () BY FACSIMILE. In addition to service by mail as set forth above, a copy of said document(s) was also delivered by facsimile transmission to the addressee(s) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1013(e). () BY PERSONAL SERVICE. I caused a true copy of said document(s) to be hand-delivered to the addressee(s) via a California registered process server pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1011. () BY EXPRESS MAIL/OVERNIGHT DELIVERY. I caused said document(s) to be deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by the express service carrier providing overnight delivery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1013(c). () BY ELECTRONIC MAIL. I caused said document(s) to be served electronically in accordance with the registered case participants and in accordance with procedures set forth pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1013(g) and CRC 2.251. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on, March 27, 2020, at Irvine, California. ROXANN FLYNN ROXANN FLYNN 1 PROOF OF SERVICE IR VI NE , CA 92 61 8 (9 49 ) 75 3- 02 55 G A T E S , GO NI ER , GU Y, Pr OU DF OO T & MU EN CH , LL P 38 DI SC OV ER Y. SU IT E 20 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 lé 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST Walter J. Lack, Esq. Andrew M. Jacobson, Esq. Christopher A. Kanne, Esq. ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4113 (310) 552-3800; Fax: (310) 552-9434 ajacobson@elllaw.com ckanne@elllaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff, ANTHONY DAVIS Ardy Pirnia, Esq. THE PIRNIA LAW GROUP 8549 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1193 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 (844) 747-5294; Fax: (877) 858-7268 Ardy.pirnia@gmail.com Co-Counsel for Plaintiff, ANTHONY DAVIS 2 PROQF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 385s0s WWI Am] GATES, GONTER, GUY, PROUDFOOT & MUENCH, LLP 38 Discove , Suite 200 Irvine, Cali ornia 92618 Telephone: (949) 753- -0255 Facsimile: (949) 753-0265 Attorney: GINA Y. KANDARIAN-STEIN, SBN: 201566 gstein@g3pmlaw.com Attorney for Defendants, TYLER RAY HARANO, RANDALL HARANO and CHARLANE HARANO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ANTHONY DAVIS, Case No: BC692726 Judge: Hon. Elaine Lu Dept: 5 Plaintiff, VS. STATUTORY OFFER TO COMPROMISE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §998 TYLER RAY HARANO, RANDALL HARANO, CHARLANE HARANO, and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants. -_- N e e t a a t a t a a a t a a a t a Complaint Filed: February 6, 2018 Trial Date: December 4, 2019 TO PLAINTIFF AND TO HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD: Please take notice that Defendants, TYLER RAY HARRANO, RANDALL HARANO, and CHARLANE HARANO, jointly but not severally, without admitting liability, pursuant to Section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereby offer to settle all claims for damages set forth by Plaintiff ANTHONY DAVIS in the Complaint on file herein for the sum of SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO/100 ($75,000.00), inclusive 1 STATUTORY OFFER TO COMPROMISE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §998 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of all liens, known and unknown, each side to bear their own attorney fees and costs, provided this offer is accepted within the time period specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 998. Should this offer be accepted, a judgment will not be entered. Rather, Plaintiff ANTHONY DAVIS will execute a release of all claims alleged in this lawsuit, which is attached to this offer, against Defendants, TYLER RAY HARRANO, RANDALL HARANO, and CHARLANE HARANO and the Complaint against Defendants will be dismissed with prejudice. If acceptance of this offer to compromise is not made within the time prescribed by said Code section, this offer will be deemed withdrawn and Plaintiff will be obligated to pay Defendants’ costs of suit, including expert witness fees, from this date unless Plaintiff obtains a more favorable judgment at the time of the trial. Plaintiff may accept the above offer by signing the following statement that the offer is accepted along with service by mail pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a within the time specified by Code of Civil Procedure section 998. Dated: December 23, 2019 GATES, GONTER, GUY, PROUDFOOT & H, LLP By: _ GINA Y. KANDARIAN-STEIN Attorneys for Defendants, TYLER RAY HARANO, RANDALL HARANO, CHARLANE HARANO This offer may be accepted only by signing the below written acceptance and serving it on the undersigned. Plaintiff ANTHONY DAVIS 2 STATUTORY OFFER TO COMPROMISE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §998 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 hereby accepts the above offer of Defendants TYLER RAY HARANO, RANDALL HARANO and CHARLANE HARANO DATED: BY: Plaintiff, ANTHONY DAVIS DATED: BY: Andrew M. Jacobson, Esg. Christopher A. Kanne, Esq. Attorneys for ANTHONY DAVIS 3 STATUTORY OFFER TO COMPROMISE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §998 GA TE S, G O N T E R , GU Y, PR OU DF OO T & MU EN CH , LL P 38 D I S C O V E R Y . SU IT E 20 0 IR VI NE , C A 92 61 8 (9 49 ) 75 3- 02 55 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE - 1013a(3) C.C.P. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 38 Discovery, Suite 200, Irvine, California 92618. On, December 23, 2019, I served the foregoing document described as STATUTORY OFFER TO COMPROMISE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §998 on the interested parties in this action as set forth on the attached service list in the following manner: (XX) BY MAIL. I am familiar with this firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, and that the correspondence shall be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1013a. I am aware that on a motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing affidavit. ( ) BY FACSIMILE. In addition to service by mail as set forth above, a copy of said document(s) was also delivered by facsimile transmission to the addressee (s) pursuant to Code ol Civil Procedure §1013(e). ( ) BY PERSONAL SERVICE. I caused a true copy of said documen t(s) to be hand-delivered to the addressee(s) via a California registered process server pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1011. ( ) BY EXPRESS MATL/OVERNIGHT DELIVERY. I caused said docume nt (s) to be deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by the express service carrier providing overnight delivery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1013(c). ( ) BY ELECTRONIC MAIL. TI caused said document(s) to be served electronically in accordance with the registered case participants and in accordance with procedures set forth pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1013(g) and CRC 2.251. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on, December 23, 2019, at Irvine, California. | ay Tl 1. ud (ee MICHELLE D. VARNER 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 38 DI SC OV ER Y, SU IT E 20 0 IR VI NE , CA 92 61 8 (9 49 ) 75 3- 02 55 GA TE S, GO NT ER , GU Y, P R O U D F O O T & M U E N C H , L L P 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST Walter J. Lack, Esq. Andrew M. Jacobson, Esq. Christopher A. Kanne, Esq. ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4113 (310) 552-3800; Fax: (310) 552-9434 ajacobsoneelllaw.com ckanne@elllaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff, ANTHONY DAVIS Ardy Pirnia, Esq. THE PIRNIA LAW GROUP 8549 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1193 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 (844) 747-5294; Fax: (877) 858-7268 Ardy.pirnia@guail . com Co-Counsel for Plaintiff, ANTHONY DAVIS 2 PROOF OF SERVICE FULL AND FINAL RELEASE AGREEMENT 1, For and in consideration of SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS and 00/100 ($75,000.00), ANTHONY DAVIS, and each of his dependents, heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Releasors," hereby fully and forever release and discharge TYLER RAY HARANO, RANDALL HARANO, CHARLANE HARANO, and each of their partners, insurers, predecessors, assigns, subsidiaries, successors in interest, employees and agents, past and present, and any other person or entity that would qualify as an insured under the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company policy that affords coverage for the damages arising out of the January 6, 2017, accident referenced herein past and present, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Releasees," from any and all claims, demands, liens, agreements, contracts, covenants, actions, suits, causes of action, obligations, controversies, deaths, costs, expenses, damages, judgments, orders and liabilities of whatever kind and nature in law, equity or otherwise, whether now known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which have existed or may exist, including but without in any respect limiting the generality of the foregoing, (1) any and all claims which were, or might, or could have been alleged in connection with the entitled, DAVIS wv. HARANO, Case Number BC692726 and (2) any and all claims arising from or out of any act, transaction, occurrence, event, error or omission which may have occurred with respect to the accidenl or incident allegedly occurring on January 6, 2017, at approximately 7:15 a.m., near the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Carol Avenue in West Hollywood, California. Zz Neither this release nor the settlement which led to it is intended to be and shall not be deemed, construed or treated in any respect as an admission of liability by any person or entity for any purpose. 3s Releasors warrant that no promise or inducement has been offered except as herein set forth. Releasors warrant that this release is executed without reliance upon any statement or representation by Releasees or their representatives, concerning the nature and extent of any injuries, damages or legal liability. Releasors warrant that they are of legal age, are legally competent to execute this release agreement and Releasors accept full responsibility therefore. 4. Notwithstanding California Civil Code Section 1542 which provides that "a general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor”, this release shall constitute a full release in accordance with its terms. Releasors knowingly and voluntarily waive the 1 provisions of Civil Code section 1542 and acknowledge and agree that this waiver is an essential and material term of this release agreement and the settlement which led to it, and that without such waiver the settlement would not have been entered into. Releasors have been advised by legal counsel and understand and acknowledge the significance and consequences of the release agreement and the specific waiver of Civil Code section 1542. 5. Releasors hereby acknowledge that the terms and conditions of this release agreement have been completely read and translated to them, if necessary, and that the terms and conditions of this release agreement are fully understood and voluntarily accepted for the express purpose of making a full compromise, adjustment and settlement of any and all claims for injury and damages as mentioned above and that this release agreement has as its purpose the preclusion of any additional claims against Releasees of any nature whatsoever. EACH SIDE BEARS THEIR OWN COSTS, ATTORNEY FEES, AND ANY OTHER FEES INCURRED IN THIS ACTION. Ox Releasors as a further consideration and inducement for this release agreement, agree to indemnify and hold harmless Releasees for any and all liability, loss, cost, damages, attorney's fees or other expenses which Releasees may sustain or incur as a result of any claim or lawsuit arising out of or connected with the incident. Releasors specifically agree to indemnify Releasees for any liability, loss, damages, attorney's fees, or any other expense which Releasees may sustain or incur as a result of any claim or lawsuit for indemnity, contribution, or comparative indemnity, medical lien (including but not limited to any medical lien of Medi-cal and Medi-care), attorney's lien, reimbursement, statutory lien, workers compensation lien, governmental liens, contractual liens, or rights, or reimbursement, or subrogation. This indemnity agreement is specifically intended to include indemnity for any negligence or active negligence or primary liability of Releasees as well as the responsibility of any other person. 7. Each of the Parties shall execute any other documents and take any other actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Agreement. 8. Releasor ANTHONY DAVIS acknowledges and covenants that he was an unmarried male, with no domestic partner, as defined by California law as of the date of the subject incident and that no loss of consortium claim related to this matter exists. 9. Releasors shall execute a dismissal with prejudice of the entire action regarding the lawsuit referenced herein. 10. This release contains the entire agreement of the parties and the terms of this release are contractual. Releasors accept drafts as final payment for this agreement. DATED DATED ANTHONY DAVIS Releasor S.S.#: D.0.B.: Andrew M. Jacobson, Esq. Christopher A. Kanne, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, ANTHONY DAVIS (As to form and content only) EXHIBIT 3 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 17 18 19 20 2] 22 23 24 25 26 2% 28 GATES, GONTER, GUY, PROUDFOOT & MUENCH, LLP 38 Discov ery, Suite 200 puna, California 92618 Telephone: (949) 753-0255 Facamile: (949) 753-0265 Attorney: GINA Y. KANDARIAN-STEIN, SBN: 201566 gstein@g3pmlaw.com Attorney for Defendants, TYLER RAY HARANO, RANDALL HARANO and CHARLANE HARANO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ANTHONY DAVIS, Case No: BC692726 Judge: Hon. Elaine Lu Dept: 5 Plaintiff, VS. DEFENDANTS’ DE-DESIGNATION OF CHRIS J. TYLER RAY HARANO, RANDALL ‘FURBISH AS EXPERT HARANO, CHARLANE HARANO, and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants. Complaint Filed: February 6, 2018 Trial Date: December 4, 2019 R d N d TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants, TYLER RAY HARANO, RANDALL HARANO, and CHARLANE HARANQ de-designate and withdraw Chris J. Furbish as an expert in the above entitled action. Dated: November 1, 2019 GATES, GO PROUDFOOT & MUENCH, LLP By: 42 v / GINA Y. KA RIAN-STEIN KEVIN PEG Attorneys for Defenédnts, TYLER RAY HARANO, RANDALL HARANO, CHARLANE HARANO 13 ~ FORM CAPTION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L:\GYK\=GYK FILES\DAVIS V. HARANO - KCP\PLEADINGS\PLD DE_DESIGNATION OF CHRIS FURBISH AS EXPERT 11-1- 19.docx 2 FORM CAPTION 5 £28 Set = | 00 SUEZ. =\a JESS Svog ES. dd Sy HUT OC Sui 5828 HEZZE