Motion To Tax Costs

Motion

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.May 8, 2015

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEHRMAN LAW GROUP KATE S. LEHRMAN [Bar No. 123050] BENSON Y. DOUGLAS [Bar No. 206742] ASHLEY E. OAKS [Bar No. 285797] 12121 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310) 917-4500 (310) 917-5677 (FAX) Attorneys for Defendant MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT ANZHELINA MARONYAN,an individual; and LYUDMILA MARONYAN, an individual, Plaintiffs, V. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, a business entity, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. 800.020.A0 - 00353805.DOCX Case No. EC063837 Related Case No. EC066298 [Filed: May 08, 2015] Hon. C. Edward Simpson Dept. E NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER RESERVATION ID #118841924105 Date: February 8, 2019 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: E DISCOVERY CUT-OFF: 07/18/16 MOTION CUT-OFF: 08/01/16 TRIAL DATE: 10/15/18 EC063837 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 8, 2019 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department E of the above-entitled Court, located at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, California 91206, defendant Mercedes Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA or defendant) will move the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1700, subdivision (b) of the California Rules of Court,to strike plaintiff Anzhelina Maronyan’s Memorandum of Costs in its entirety ortax $35,706.98 in costs, as follows: (1) $180.00 for filing fees, claimed under Item 1; (2) $150.00 for jury fees, claimed under Item 2; (3) $11,243.06 for deposition costs, claimed under Item 4; 4) $1,470.00 for unspecified service of process costs, claimed under Item 5; (5) $15,314.48 for expert costs, claimed under Item 16; (6) $240.00 for Defense Inspection - Videographer claimed under Item 16; (7 $189.76 for Integrity Motors - Inspection, claimed under Item 16; (8) $4,920.72 for “hotels for trial and depositions”, claimed under Item 16; 9) $19.50 for “parking for deposition”, claimed underItem 16; (10) $10.36 for “lunch for deposition”, claimed under Item 16; (11) $1,234.60 for “One Legal”, claimed under Item 16; (12) $650.50 for postage, envelopes, GSO/FED EX”, claimed under Item 16;, nad (13) $84.00 for “Court Call”, claimed under Item 16. This Motion will be made on the grounds that: (1) the costs claimed by plaintiff are not substantiated; (2) the costs are not allowable, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (b); (3) the costs were not reasonably necessary to the conduct ofthe litigation, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(2); (4) the costs are not reasonable in amount, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(3); (5) the costs were not reasonably incurred by plaintiff, in violation of Civil Code § 1794, subdivision (d); and (6) these items are not properly claimed as a cost in this action. 11 800.020.A0 - 00353805.DOCX 2 EC063837 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1% 18 19 20 2] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This Motion will be based on this Notice, the pleadings, records and files herein, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declaration of Ashley E. Oaks filed and served herewith, and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this Motion. DATED: January 7, 2019 LEHRMAN [LAW GROUP KATE S. LEHRMAN BENSON Y DOUGLAS ASHLEY E/JOA By: RCEDES-BENZ LS: 800.020.A0 - 00353805.DOCX 8 EC063837 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs should be stricken, or the costs claimed by plaintiff should be taxed, in the sum of $35,706.98. Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(2) provides that allowable costs must be reasonably necessary to the conduct ofthe litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation. Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(3) provides that allowable costs shall be reasonable in amount. This was a routine lemon law case. The costs claimed by plaintiff are excessive and unreasonable. II. THE ENTIRETY OF PLAINTIFE’S COSTS SHOULD BE STRICKEN BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIMED COSTS The entirety of plaintiff’s costs should be stricken because Plaintiff has not provided documentation to substantiate any of her claimed costs. There are no dates on which the costs were allegedly incurred, no invoices, no credit card entries and no receipts. Simply put, the costs are not described sufficiently to enable defendant to determine whetherthey are allowable or reasonably necessary to the conduct of this action. By way of comparison, in Whatley-Miller v. Cooper (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1103, the plaintiffs filed a Memorandum of Costs which included the worksheet as well the underlying bills. (/d. at 1108, 1109.) The Court upheld an award of costs because plaintiffs had “offered the bills to support the amounts requested.” (Jd. 1115.) Because Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d) allows for the recovery of “costs and expenses,” the Court of Appeal in Jensen v. BMW ofNorth America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, held that the statute allows prevailing plaintiffs to recover not only the costs specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, but also other “expenses”like expert witness fees that would not otherwise be recoverable. (/d. at 138.) However, the Courtstressed that section 1794 only entitles lemon law plaintiffs to costs and expenses that are “‘reasonably incurred ... .” (§ 1794, subd. (d).)” (Id. at 138.) 800.020.A0 - 00353805.DOCX | BC5804251 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE ORTAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER dS ~ N O Y OD » 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In sum, this Court has the powerto disallow even costs “allowable as a matter of right” if they were not “reasonably necessary”; and to reduce the amount of any cost item to an amount that is “reasonable.” (Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 245 [“intent and effect of (§ 1033.5(c)(2)) is to authorize trial Courtto disallow recovery of costs, including filing fees, when it determines the costs were incurred unnecessarily”]). Under these standards,all of the costs claimed by plaintiff should be taxed in their entirety. Plaintiff has not carried her burden of showing their entitlement to any of these costs. 111. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR MOTION FOR MOTION FEES IS UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE Plaintiff seeks to recover $915.00 in filing and motion fees under Item 1. Of this, $180.00 should be taxed from plaintiff claimed costs as unreasonably incurred. Specifically, plaintiff claims $180.00 in motion fees for plaintiff's Ex Parte for Equitable Relief, Motion for Equitable Relief and Motion for Fees and Costs. As the Court recalls, both the Ex Parte nor the Motion for Equitable Relief were brought after former plaintiff, Lyudmila was dismissed from this action, were not filed for the benefit of any party, and were not reasonably necessary to the conduct ofthe litigation. Additionally, plaintiff claims a filing fee of $60.00 for plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ fees, which plaintiff subsequently withdrew as untimely filed. A true and correct copy of the January 4, 2019 letter correspondence from plaintiffs’ counsel reflecting same is attached hereto as Exhibit A. IV. PLAINTIFE’S CLAIM FOR JURY FEES IS UNREASONABLE Plaintiff seeks to recover, under Item 2, jury fees in the amount of $150.00. Plaintiff agreed to waive a jury trial, and this amount should be taxed in its entirety as unreasonable and not necessary to the conduct ofthe litigation. " 1" 1 800.020.A0 - 00353805.DOCX 2 BC5804251 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE ORTAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER © ow uN Oo Wn A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR DEPOSITION COSTS IS UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE Plaintiff claims a total of $14,010.16 in costs fortranscribing, videotaping and traveling to depositions under Item No. 4. Ofthis, plaintiff claims $792.28 in travel costs associated with these depositions. Deposition travel costs are generally only recoverable where depositions are taken out-of-state. (See, e.g., Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49 [trial court did not abuseits discretion in allowing the costs of travel to and from depositions in otherstates, including hotels, car rentals, gas, and parking].) Moreover, “[r]outine expenses for local travel by attorneys or other firm employees are not reasonably necessary to the conduct oflitigation.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761.) In addition, the prevailing plaintiff in a Song-Beverly action may only recover “such out-of-pocket expenses asfiling fees, expert witness fees, marshall’s [sic] fees, etc.” (Jensen v. BMW ofNorth America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112.) Assuming that these costs are for mileage, they are not such an out-of-pocket expense, as evidenced by the fact that the mileage claims are not supported by any documentation of payment, number of miles drive, reimbursement rate or any other substantiating evidence. These costs were not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(2). These costs are not reasonable in amount, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(3), and these items are not properly claimed as a cost in this action. Plaintiff's Memorandum should be taxed accordingly in the amount of $792.28. Plaintiff claims the remaining $13,217.88 in deposition costs and videotaping in connection with the depositions of Arturo Munoz, Mario Haro, Felippe Pablo, Johnny Murrilo, Eric Wierman and Greg Kassarjian. In Item 4a, plaintiff claims $2,380.73 for transcription costs in connection with the deposition of Arturo Munoz. In Item 4d, plaintiff claims $1,332.85 for transcription costs in connection with the deposition of Johnny Murrilo. In Attachment 4e, plaintiff claims $1,252.20 for transcription costs in connection with the deposition of Greg Kassarjian. These deposition costs were not necessary or reasonably incurred. As attorneys who 800.020.A0 - 00353805. DOCX 3 BC5804251 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE ORTAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 specialize inthis area of the law, plaintiff's attorneys know there is no reasonto take the depositions ofthe service advisors and technicians because they keep a contemporaneous record of their work on the repair orders they prepare each time they work on a vehicle. Plaintiff's attorneys also know the service advisors and technicians work on hundreds of vehicles each year, and often cannot remember each one. There was no reason to incurthe cost of taking the depositions of the service advisors and technicians in this case. These costs were not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and are not reasonable in amount and plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs should be taxed accordingly in the amount of $5,758.08. In Item4c, plaintiff claims $310.00 for transcription costs in connection with the deposition of Felippe Pablo. Plaintiff did not take Mr. Pablo’s deposition, or have any intent to call Mr. Pablo at trial. Plaintiff cannot now claimthat the costs associated with same were reasonably incurred or necessary to the conduct ofthe litigation, and plaintiff’s Memorandum should be taxed accordingly in the amount of $310.00. The only reasonable and necessary non-expert depositions was the deposition of Mario Haro, MBUSA’s Person Most Knowledgeable. In Item 4b, plaintiff claims $2,767.10 for transcription costs in connection with Mr. Haro’s deposition. Plaintiff also claims an additional $1,546.25 for videotaping Mr. Haro’s deposition. The videotaping costs should be taxed entirely. Plaintiff did not designate any portions of Mr. Haro’s videotaped deposition prior to trial and did not seek to offer any portions of Mr. Haro’s videotaped deposition at the time oftrial. This cost was not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs should be taxed accordingly in the amount of $1,546.25. In Attachment 4e, plaintiff claims $3,628.75 for transcription costs in connection with the two depositions of MBUSA’s expert, Eric Wierman. Plaintiff does not separate the costs for either individual deposition, and consolidated the transcription fee into a single amount without providing any documentation. It was also unreasonable and unnecessary to depose MBUSA’s expert, Eric Wierman, on two separate occasions. One deposition was sufficient. However, because plaintiff failed to specify the costs for each deposition, there is no way for defendant or 800.020,A0 - 00353805. DOCX 4 BC5804251 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE ORTAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the Court to determine ifthe cost was reasonably incurred. The entire amount of $3,628.75 claimed for Mr. Wierman’s deposition should be taxed accordingly. VI. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS COSTS IS UNREASONABLE EXCESSIVE Plaintiff claims $1,511.00 in service of process costs under Item 5. Ofthis, plaintiff seeks to recover $1,470.00 in service of process costs for four individuals, Johnny Murrilo, Arturo Munoz, Greg Kassarjian and Pablo Felipe (Felipe Pablo). Specifically, in Item 5a, plaintiff claims $525.00 in service of process costs for Johnny Murrilo. Plaintiff has not provided any documentation substantiating this cost. In fact, the signed proof of service for Mr. Murrilo’s deposition subpoena does not indicate that plaintiff incurred any fees for service of process. A true and correct copy of the Deposition Subpoena and proof of service for Mr. Murrilo’s July 21, 2016 deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit B. In Item 5b, plaintiff claims $290.00in service or process costs for Arturo Munoz. Plaintiff has not provided any documentation substantiating this cost. In Item 5c, plaintiff claims $525.00 in service of process costs for Greg Kassarjian. It should be noted, however, that on April 18, 2016, plaintiff's attorney, Ellen Turnage, and not a process server, served the deposition subpoena on Mr. Kassarjian with respect to his May 20, 2016 deposition, and Ms. Turnage signed a proof of service under penalty of perjury declaring same. A true and correct copy of the Deposition Subpoena and proof of service for Mr. Kassarjian’s deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit C. In Items 5d, plaintiff claims $120.00 in service of process costs for Pablo Felipe (Felipe Pablo). Plaintiff has not provided any documentation substantiating this cost. In fact, the signed proof of service for Mr. Pablo’s deposition subpoena does not indicate that plaintiff incurred any fees for service of process. A true and correct copy of the Deposition Subpoena and proof of service for Mr. Pablo’s July 22, 2016 deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Additionally, plaintiff elected not to take Mr. Pablo’s deposition, and cannot now claimthat this cost was reasonably incurred or necessary to the conduct ofthe litigation. 11 800.020.A0 - 00353805. DOCX 5 BC5804251 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE ORTAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 These costs were not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(c)(2). These costs are not reasonable in amount, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(c)(3), and these items are not properly claimed as a cost in this action. Plaintiff has not provided any documentation substantiating her claimthat the $1,470.00 in service or process costs claimed under Item 5 were actually incurred, nor has she provided any documentation as to the nature of the service of process. When these improper costs are deducted from $1,511.00 in service of process costs claimed by plaintiff, the balance is $41.00. VIL. PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE COST OF TRANSCRIPTS Plaintiff claims $9,435.10 in court reporter fees for unspecified transcripts not ordered by the court. Transcripts of court proceedings not ordered by the court are not allowable as costs, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (b)(5). There is no way for Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs does not specify the date or nature of the proceedings that she alleges were transcribed, nor does plaintiff include any documentation or evidence substantiating these costs. Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(2) provides that allowable costs must be reasonably necessary to the conduct ofthe litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation. These costs were not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (¢)(2). These costs are not reasonable in amount, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (¢)(3), and these items are not properly claimed as a cost in this action. VIII. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR EXPERT FEES/COSTS IS UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE Plaintiff claims $21,770.30 in in expert costs under Item 16. Plaintiff did not attach any documentation to substantiate these claimed costs. Instead, plaintiff attached copies of various invoices from DCIAD to plaintiffs withdrawn Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. Where, as here, 800.020.A0 - 00353805.DOCX 6 BC5804251 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE ORTAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered whenit is within the powerof the party to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust. (See Evid. Code, § 412.) The prevailing plaintiff in a Song-Beverly action may recover "such out-of-pocket expenses as filing fees, expert witness fees, marshall's [sic] fees, etc." (Jensen v. BMW ofNorth America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 138.) However, plaintiffs claim for $21,770.30 in expert fees is unreasonable, unsubstantiated excessive. Based on the invoices attached to the declaration accompanying plaintiff’s withdrawn Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, it appears that plaintiff’s expert billed a total of 18 hours (8 hours on 6/21/16, 1 hour on 7/29/16 and 9 hours on 11/7/16 [including travel]) for non-inspection related “in office or phone consultation”. Plaintiff’s expert fails to specify whether each ofthese alleged “consultations” occurred by phone orin the office of plaintiff's counsel in San Diego, and it is unclear whether they were reasonably incurred. Plaintiff’s expert also invoiced a total of 56 hours for the similarly described services of “preparation time for pre-depo consultation, deposition or trial”, at varying hourly rates (2.5 hours on 7/26/16 at $200.00 per hour, 4.2 hours on 7/27/16 at $200.00 per hour, 8.8 hours on 7/28/16 at $200.00 per hour, 1.5 hours on 7/29/16 at $200.00 per hour, 3 hours on 6/2/17 at $200.00 per hour, 10 hours on 6/3/17 [including travel to San Diego] at $200.00 per hour, 3.5 hours on 6/21/17 at $200.00 per hour, 10 hours on 6/23/17 [including travel to San Diego] at $200.00 per hour, 4 hours on 10/3/18 at $250.00 per hour, 5 hours at 10/4/18 at $250.00 per hour, and 3.5 hours on 10/14/18 at $250.00 hour). Not only do these entries appearin nature, plaintiff's expert fails to specify whether this time was billed for consultation, deposition ortrial. The number of hours billed is clearly excessive. Moreover, neither defendant nor the Court can determine whether these costs were reasonably incurred. Plaintiff's Memorandum should be taxed accordingly in the amount of $11,825.00. Mr. Calef also invoiced a total of 20 hours at varying hourly rates (2.5 hours on 4/5/16 at $150.00 per hour, 8.5 hours between 4/24/16-4/30/16 at $150.00 per hour, 2 hours on 6/9/16 at $200.00 per hour, 1.5 hours on 6/27/16 at $0.00 per hour, 2 hours on 7/23/16 at $150.00 per 800.020.A0 - 00353805.DOCX 7 BC5804251 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE ORTAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER O O 0 N J 10 1] bo) 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 hour, 3.5 hours on 12/17/16 at $150.00 per hour) for vehicle inspection-related matters. Plaintiff’s expert testified during deposition that his hourly rate is $150.00 per hourfor vehicle inspection-related matters, yet charges varying and inconsistent rates for inspection-related matters. A true and correct copy of the relevant portions of Mr. Calef’s July 29, 2016 deposition transcript is attached hereto as Exhibit E. The number of hoursis billed clearly excessive, and the hourly rates are inconsistent even though they relate to a single expert, which raises questions about the credibility of plaintiff's expert’s billings. Plaintiff's Memorandum should be taxed accordingly in the amount of $2,875.00. Plaintiff's expert also invoices $114.48 for “parts purchased for trial exhibits or for vehicle inspection/testing”. No itemization of the part allegedly purchased, or receipts itemizing the purchase were provided. Plaintiff” expert also invoices $500.00 for “shop and equipment use”at Integrity Motor Sport on 12/16/16. As set forth below, plaintiff has already claimed $189.76 impropercosts that plaintiff has allegedly paid to Integrity Motors for an inspection. Plaintiff has not provided any documentation substantiating either costs she claims from Integrity Motors. Plaintiff’s Memorandum should be taxed accordingly in the amount of $614.48. Plaintiff has not offered any explanation -- muchless any evidence -- to show why the claimed expert fees were reasonably necessary to the conduct ofthe litigation, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(2). These fees are not reasonable in amount, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(3), and are not properly claimed as a cost in this action. IX. THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE OR TAX THE IMPROPER COSTS DEMANDED BY PLAINTIFFS Plaintiff claims an additional $6,719.44 in improper costs under Item 16, primarily because there are no invoices to show these costs were incurred orthat they were reasonably incurred. Specifically, defendant respectfully requests that the Courtstrike plaintiff's requests of $240.00 for a videographerat the defense inspection. Plaintiff's counsel was presentat the vehicle inspection, and plaintiff has not provided any explanation of why this costs was 800.020.A0 - 00353805. DOCX 8 BC5804251 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE ORTAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER C S O C 0 N N O N U n B s 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reasonable or necessarily incurred. Defendant also that the Court strike plaintiff's request for $189.76 for an inspection at Integrity Motors. Plaintiff has not described the date or the nature or purpose of the inspection, plaintiff did not designate orcall any person from Integrity Motors to testify at trial, and plaintiff did not seek to introduce any evidence ofthis inspection at the time of trial. Defendant also requests that the Court strike $4,290.72 for hotels for trial and depositions. Not only is this cost excessive, plaintiff does not specify whether this cost was incurred in connection with deposition or trial, or provide any invoice or documentation showing that this cost was reasonable or necessarily incurred. Defendant also requests that the Court strike $19.50 for parking and $10.36 for lunch at deposition, as not allowable costs under Civil Procedure Code section 1033.5. Defendant also requests that the Courtstrike $1,234.60 for costs allegedly paid to One Legal. Assuming that these fees are for electronic filing, they are not allowable under Civil Procedure Code section 1033.5(a)(14) because there is no evidence that the court requires or orders electronic filing or service of documents in this action. Additionally, plaintiff has not provided any evidence substantiating this cost in order to determine whetherit was reasonable or necessary for the litigation of this action. Defendant also requests that the Court strike $650.50 in postage, envelopes, GSO/Fed Ex costs. Plaintiff has not provided any evidence substantiating this cost in order to determine whether it was reasonable or necessary for the litigation of this action. Finally, defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike $84.00 in Court Call costs. Plaintiff has not described nature of the hearing(s) attended, or provided any information substantiating same in order to determine whether it was reasonable or necessary for the litigation of this action. Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(2) provides that allowable costs must be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation. 11 1 /" 800.020.A0 - 00353805.DOCX 9 BC5804251 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE ORTAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEYE. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER O o 0 3 O N i n B b 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 X. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, and for such other and further reasons as may be adduced in a reply Memorandum and upon the hearing of this Motion, Defendant respectfully prays that costs be taxed as set forth above. DATED: January 7, 2019 LEHRMAN LAW GROUP KATE S. LEHRMAN BENSON Y} DQUGLAS By: 2] 5 ¢ Ashlie B7 Oaks TE » arcys for Defendant ERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC 800.020.A0 - 00353805.DOCX 10 BC5804251 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE ORTAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS I, Ashley E. Oaks, declare as follows: I; I am an attorney at law duly licensed and entitled to practice in the State of California. I am associated with Lehrman Law Group, attorneys of record for defendant. I am one of the attorneys with primary responsibility for handling this matter on behalf of defendant. In that capacity, I am personally familiar with the facts set forth herein and if called as a witness inthis case, I could and would competently testify hereto. 2. The facts set forth in the foregoing Memorandumare true and correct. 3. The documents attached hereto are true and correct copies. 4, A true and correct copy of the January 4, 2019 letter correspondence from plaintiffs’ counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5. A true and correct copy of the deposition subpoena and proof ofservice for Mr. Murrilo’s July 21, 2016 deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 6. A true and correct copy of the Deposition Subpoena and proof of service for Mr. Kassarjian’s deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 7. A true and correct copy of the deposition subpoenas and proof of service for Mr. Pablo’s July 22, 2016 deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 8. A true and correct copy ofthe relevant portions of Mr. Calef’s July 29, 2016 deposition transcript is attached hereto as Exhibit E. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregbing is and corfect. Executed this 7 day of January, 2019, at Los Angeles, Californi 800.020.A0 - 00353805.DOCX | EC063837 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE ORTAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER LEHRMAN LAW GROUP KATE S. LEHRMAN [Bar No. 123050] BENSON Y. DOUGLAS [Bar No. 206742] ASHLEY E. OAKS [Bar No. 285797] 12121 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310) 917-4500 (310) 917-5677 (FAX) Attorneys for Defendant MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ANZHELINA MARONYAN, an individual; and LYUDMILA MARONYAN, an individual, Plaintiffs, V. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC,a business entity, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. 800.020.A0 - 00353805.DOCX Case No. EC063837 Related Case No. EC066298 [Filed: May 08, 2015] Hon. C. Edward Simpson Dept. E [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS RESERVATION ID #118841924105 Date: February &, 2019 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. E DISCOVERY CUT-OFF: 11/07/16 MOTION CUT-OFF: 03/07/17 TRIAL DATE: 01/31/18 | EC063837 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS » The Motion of defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA or defendant), pursuant to Rule 3.1700, subdivision (b) of the California Rules of Court, for an Orderstriking or taxing costs, came on regularly before this Court in Department E, the Honorable C. Edward Simpson, Judge, presiding. On proof madeto the satisfaction of the Court that the Motion should be granted, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion be, and the same herebyis, granted, and plaintiff Anzhelina Maronyan’s Memorandum of Costs is stricken in its entirety. [OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE] IT IS ORDERED that the Motion be, and the same herebyis, granted, and plaintiff Nilay Patel’s costs are taxed in the amount $35,706.98 in costs,as follows: (14) $180.00 forfiling fees, claimed under Item 1; (15) $150.00 for jury fees, claimed underItem 2; (16) $11,243.06 for deposition costs, claimed under Item 4; (17) $1,470.00 for unspecified service of process costs, claimed under Item 5; (18) $15,314.48 for expert costs, claimed under Item 16; (19) $240.00 for Defense Inspection - Videographer claimed under Item 16; (20) $189.76 for Integrity Motors - Inspection, claimed under Item 16; (21) $4,920.72 for “hotels fortrial and depositions”, claimed under Item 16; (22) $19.50 for “parking for deposition”, claimed under Item 16; (23) $10.36 for “lunch for deposition”, claimed under Item 16; (24) $1,234.60 for “One Legal”, claimed under Item 16; (25) $650.50 for postage, envelopes, GSO/FED EX”, claimed under Item 16;, nad (26) $84.00 for “Court Call”, claimed under Item 16. DATED: HONORABLE C. EDWARD SIMPSON JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 800.020.A0 - 00353805.DOCX 2 EC063837 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS EXHIBIT A SAN DIEGO, CA 2221 Camino Del Rio S, Ste 101 San Dicgo, CA 92108-3609 RIVERSIDE, CA www.westcoastlitigation.com Costa MESA, CA ellen@westcoastlitigation.com * HYDE & SWIGART Consumer Protection Attorneys FRESNO, CA |T: 619.233.7770 F: 619.297.1022 SACRAMENTO, CA PHOENIX, AZ January 4, 2019 VIA E-MAILAND US MAIL IDouglas@lehrmanlawgreup.com AOaks@lehrmanlawgroup.com Benson Douglas, Esq. Ashley Oaks, Esq. Lehrman Law Group 12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300 Los Angeles, California 90025 Re: Motion for Fees and Costs Memorandum of Costs Motion for Equitable Relief From Judgment Dear Mr. Benson, I scheduled two hearings for January 18, 2019,at 8:30 a.m., Glendale Courthouse, 600 East Broadway, Glendale, California. You have been served with the papers for a Motion for Equitable Relief From Judgment and a Motion for Fees and Costs. The Court received the Motion for Equitable Relief in a timely manner. That hearing will go forward on January 18. FedEx did notfile the Motion for Fees and Costs on time. Therefore, the Court rejected the late filing. That Motion is off calendar for January 18. I will reserve a new hearing date for the Motion for Fees and Costs and will notify you of the new hearing date. You do not need to file an opposition based on the January 18 hearing date. In addition, I filed and served a Memorandum of Costs on December 28, 2018. Your objection must be timely filed. If you have any questions regarding these issues, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. l len E. Turnage EXHIBIT B SUBP-015 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Stale Barnumbor, and address); - Ellen E. Turnage, SBN: 176941 Hyde & Swigart 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, California 92108 TeLepHone NO: 619-233-7770 FAX NO.(Options: 619-297-1022 e-mAL ADDRESS (optionat: €llen(@westcoastlitigation.com ATTORNEY FOR (Namo): Anzhelina Maronyan & Lyudmila Maronyan SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Los Angees street aooress: 600 EB Broadway MAILING ADDRESS: crvanozircooe: Glendale 91206 srance Name: Glendale Courthouse FOR COURT USE ONLY PLAINTIFF/ PETITIONER: Anzhelina Maronyan & Lyudmila Maronyan DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT: Mercedes-Benz USA LI.C DEPOSITION SUBPOENA CASE NUMBER: FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE EC063837 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, If known): Johnny Murrielo, Hoehn Motors, 5475 Car Country Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008; 760-438-4454 1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO TESTIFY AS AWITNESS i n this action at the following date, time, and place: Date: July 21, 2016 Time: 10:00 a.m. Address: 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101, San Diego, CA 92108; 619-233-7770 al _]Asa deponent who is not a natural person, you are ordered to designate one or more personsto testify on your behalf as to the matters described in item 2. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.230.) b. [/] This deposition will be recorded stenographically [1 through the instant visual display of testimony andby [| audiotape [| videotape. ¢. [_] This videotape deposition is intended for possible use at trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620(d). 2. [1] Ifthe witness is a representative of a business or other entity, the matters upon which the witness is to be examined are as follows: 3. Al the deposition, you will be asked questions under oath. Questions and answers are recorded stenographically at the deposition; later they are transcribed forpossible use at trial. You may read the written record and change any incorrect answers before you sign the deposilion. You are enlilled lo receive wilness fees and mileage aclually raveled both ways. The money must be paid, at the option of the party giving nolice of the deposition, either with service of this subpoena or at the time of the deposilion. Unless the court orders or you agree otherwise, if you are being deposed as an individual, the deposition must tale place within 75 miles of your residence or within 150 miles of your residence If the deposition will he taken within the county of the court where the action is pending. The location of the deposition for all deponents is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.250. DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF $500 AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY. Date issued: July 8, 2016 ELLEN E. TURNAGE ) (acs+ (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) mm. (TITLE) (Proof of service aon reverse) Page 1 of 2 Form Adopiod for Mandatory Uso Code of CIvll Procadura §§ 2020.310, Judlclal Council of California DEPOSITION SuBPOENA 2025.220, 2026.230, 2025.250, 2025.620 SUBP-015 (Rav. January 1, 2008) FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE Govammen! Code, § 68097.1 Wwww.caurtinfo.ca.goy SUBP-015 CASE NUMBER: EC063837 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Anzhelina Maronyan & Lyudmila Maronyan DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Mercedes-Benz USA LLC PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE 1. | served thls Deposiilon Subpoena for Personal Appearance by personally delivering a copy to the person served as follows: a. Person served (namo): Johnny Murrislo b. Address where served: 5475 Car Country Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 c. Date of delivery: 7/11/16 d. Time of delivery: 11:45 am e. Wilness fees and mileage both ways (checlc one): (1) [1 were paid. Amount: ....... ... (2) x_] were not pald. (3) CJ were tendered to the witness's public entity employer as required by Government Code section 68097.2. The amount tendered was (specify). ........ $ f. Fee forsemvice: . ......... covueurann $ | received lhis subpoena far service on (dale): 7H116 Person serving: Not a registered California process server Californla sheriff or marshal Registered California process server Employee or independent confraclor of a registered California process server Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b) Registered professional photocopier Exempl from regisiration under Business and [Professions Code section 22451 . Name, address,telephone number, and,If applicable, county ofregistration and number; Timothy W. Barrett: Southwest Legal Services, LLC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 103 San Diego, CA 92108 619-955-7225 County: San Diego ID No.: 1436 ¢0 0 1 declare under penally of perjury underthe laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 7/14/16 (SIGNATURE) (For California sheriff or marshal use only) | certify that ihe foregoing Is true and correct. Date: (SIGNATURE) SUBP-015 (Rav. January 1, 2009] PROOF OF SERVICE OF Page 2012 DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE EXHIBIT C SUBP-020 FOR COURTUSE ONLY AEfenetORitnage:HAREGe6hja Slote Barnumber, and address): _ Hyde & Swigart 2221 imDel Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, Celilo 92108 veLepHoNE No: 019-233-7770 FAX NO, (Oplional: E-MAIL ADDRESS (Cpllanal): ellen@westcoastlitigation.com ATTORNEY FOR (ame): Anzhelina & Lyudmila Maronyan SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY oFLos Angeles streeT obress: 000 E. Broadway MAILING ADDRESS; Gl d ] 91206 - mt endale is- Glendale Cowthouse ; EXH PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Anzhelina & Lyudmila Maronyan | ' \ 5-200 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Mercedes Benz USA LLC, et al DEPOSITION SUBPOENA CASE NUMBER: FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS EC063837 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, If known): Greg Kassarjian, Service Manager, Calstar Motors Inc., 700 S. Brand Blvd, Glendale, CA 91204; 818-246-180( _ 1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO TESTIFY'AS A WITNESS In this action at the following date, time, and place: Date: May 20,2016 Time: 2:00 p.m. Address: 707 Wilshire Blvd, #3500, Los Angeles 90017 a. [_] Asa deponent wha Is not a natural person, you are ordered to designate one or iriore persons to testify on your behalf as to the matters described In item 4. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.230.) b. [#7] You are ordered to produce the documents and things described In item 3, ¢. [37] This deposition will be recorded stenographically [] through the instant visual display of testimony and by [__] audiotape [1] videotape. cd CT This videotape deposition is Intended for possible use af trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620(d). 2. The personal attendance of the custodian or other qualified witness and the production of the original records are required bythis subpoena. The procedure authorized by ERE Code sections 1560(b), 1561, and 1562 will not be deemed sufficient compliance with this subpoena. 3. The documents and things to be produced and any testing or sampling being soughtare described as follows: See Attachment 3 : [#1 Continued on Attachment 3. : 4. Ifthe wilness Is a representative of a business or other entity, the malters uponwhich the witness Is to.be examined are described asfollows: -Continued on Attachment 4, IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENAAS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER CODE QF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985,3 OR 1985.6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECT|ON HAS BEEN SERVED ON YOU, A COURT ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSES, AND CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AFFECTED MUSTBE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS. 8. Al the deposition, you will be asfed questions under oath, Questions andanswers are recorded stenographilcally at the deposition;later they are transcribéd forpossible use at irlal, You may read (fe written recordend change any Incorrect answers before you sign the deposition. You are entitled lo receive witness fees and mileage actually traveled both ways, The money must be paid, at the oplion of the parly giving nolice ofthe depastiion, eilher with service of this subpoena or at the time ofthe deposition. Unless the court orders oryou agree otherwise, Ifyou are being deposed asan Individual, the deposition must take place within 76 milés ofyour residence or within 150 miles ofyourresidence Ifthe deposition willbe taken within the county of the court where the aclion is pending. The location ofthe deposition for all deponents Is governed by Code of Civil Frodadire section 2025.250. DISOBEDIENGE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT,YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF $500 AND ALL. DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUREAILURE TO.OBEY, G r Dateissued: April 1, 2016 ) qd 0hLis . J Sa : UT (SIGNATUREPERSORTSSUINGSUBPOENA) ELLEN E. TURNAGE Attorney : (TYPE OR NAME) (Proofof n (TITLE) Pagetara [ 1? daCoundofCalla DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FORPERSONAL APPEARANCE 5,05fa 21hfocedine82020510SUBP-020 (Rev. January 1, 2009] AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS GovernmentGodo,§6805. wilw.coly info.ca.gov MC-025 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: - Maronyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA,et al ) . EC063837 ATTACHMENT (Number); 5 (This Aftachment may be used with any Judiclal Council form.) 1. Any and all documents which identify by name, address and telephone number Technician 145 as reflected on Calstar Repair Orders 220230 and 220749, dated May 19,2014 and June 2, 2014, respectively. 2.- Any and all shop copies of Repair Orders 220230 and 220749 which reflect actual work performed by Technician 145 on the 2014 C250W Mercedes-Benz, VIN: WDDGF4HBGEA958917. 3. Any and all documents whichidentify by name, address and telephone numberTechnician 97 as reflected on Calstar Repair Orders 222487, 226790, 226899 and 228857, dated July 2 2014, November 14, 2014, November 17,2014, and January 13, 2015, respectively. 4. Any and all shop copies of Repair Orders 222487, 226790, 226899 and 228857 which reflect actual work performed by Technician 97 on the 2014 C250W Mercedes-Benz, VIN: WDDGF4HB6EA958917. 5. Any and all documents which identify by name, address and telephone number Technician 92 as reflected on Calstar Repair Order 223513, dated August 20, 2014. 6. Any and all shop copies of Repair Order 223513 which reflect actual work performed by Technician 92 on the 2014 C250WMercedes-Benz, VIN: WDDGF4HB6EA958917. 7. Any and all DAS screens and/orprintouts which resulted from diagnostic testing performed by any one at Calstar Motors or on behalf of Calstar Motors regarding the 2014 C250W Mercedes-Benz, VIN: WDDGF4HB6EA958917. 8. Any and all documents whichreflect any communications, written or oral, Technician 145 had with anyone regarding the 2014 C250W Mercedes-Benz, VIN: WDDGF4HB6EA958917. 9. Any and all documents which reflect any communications, written ororal, Technician 97 had with anyone regarding the 2014 C250W Mercedes-Benz, VIN: WDDGF4HB6EA958917. 10. Any and all documents which reflect any communications, written or oral, Technician 92 had with anyone regarding the 2014 C250W Mercedes-Benz, VIN: WDDGF4HBG6EA958917. 11. Any and all docuemnts hich reflect any communications, written or oral, you had with anyone regarding the 2014 C250W Mercedes-Benz, VIN: WDDGF4HBG6EA958917. ; (If the item thatthis Attachment concerns is made underpenalty ofpequry, all statements in this Page 2 of 3 Attachment are made underpenally ofperjury.) ; (Add pagesas required) FormApprDpse. ATTACHMENT a Hempel MC-025 (Rov. July 1, 2008) to Judicial Council Form SUBP-020 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Anzhelina & Lyudmila Mearonyan CASE NUMBER: EC063837 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Mercedes Benz USA LLC, et al PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS 1.1- this Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appeararicé ahdProduction of Documents and Things by personally delivering a copyto the person served as follows; a. Person served (name): Hrs Xatlary Lor : b. Address where served: Whrsnd 2cP0 =4cine teed ¢. Date of delivery: &// 57 Lo» d. Time of delivery: =~ 7 «30 7 8. Witnessfees and mileage both ways (check one): MD C1 were paid. Amount; ........... $ 2 [J were notpaid. (3) [J were tendered to the witness's public entity employer as required by Government Code sectlon 68097.2. The amount tendered was (specify): ....... 3 f. Fee for Service: ...ovv ures vnnnrnenss bwin 2. | recelved this subpoena for service on (date): 3. Person senving: a. Not a registered California process server b. [1 california sheriff or marshal c, [1 Registered California process server d [1] Employee or Independent contractor of a registered California process server e. 1] Exempt from registration under Businessand Professions. Code section 22350(b) f [] Registered professional photocopier g. i Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451 h. Name, address, telephone number, and, if applicable, county of registration and number: | declare under penalty of perjury under the Jaws of the Stats of (For California sheriff or marshal use only) Callfornia that the foregoing Is true and correct. I cerilfy that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 3) [| 6 Dale: S--TEIGNATURE) (SIGNATURE) SUBP-020 [Rav. January 1, 2009] PROOF OF SERVICE CREE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE oH AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS EXHIBIT D SUBP-015 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar numbar, snd address): - Ellen E. Turnage, SBN: 176941 ERE Hyde & Swigart 2221 Camino Del Rio, South, Suite 101 San Diego, California 92108 TELEPHONE NO: 619-233-7770 FAX NO. (Optional): 619-297-1022 EMAIL ADDRESS (opfiona: ellen@westcoastlitigation.com ATTORNEY FoR (vame): Anzhelina Maronyan & Lyudmila Maronyan SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Los Angees srreet avoress: 600 E Broadway MAILING ADDRESS: city anozie cone: Glendale 91206 sranciiname: Glendale Courthouse PLAINTIFF/ PETITIONER: Anzhelina Maronyan & Lyudmila Maronyan DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT: Mercedes-Benz USA LLC DEPOSITION SUBPOENA CASE NUMBER; FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE EC063837 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, if known): Felipe Pablo, Mercedes-Benz of Anaheim, 5395 E La Palma Avenue, Anaheim 92807; 714-777-7431 1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS in this action at the following date, time, and place: Date: July 22, 2016 Time: 9:00 a.m Address: 20 Corporate Park, Suite 350, Irvine, CA 92606 a. [__] As adeponentwho is not a natural person, you are ordered to designate one or more persons to testify on your behalf as to the matters described in item 2. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.230.) b. [WZ] This deposition will be recorded stenographically CC] through the instant visual display of testimony andby [__] audiotape [| videotape. ¢. [__] This videotape deposition is intended for possible use at trial under Code of Clvll Procedure section 2025.620(d). 2. [1] Ifthe witness Is a representative of a business or other entity, the matters upon which the witness is to be examined are as follows: 3. At the deposition, you will be asked questions under oalh. Questions and answers are recorded stenographicelly at the deposition; later they are transcribed for possible use at Irial. You may read the written record and change any incorrect answers before you sign the deposition. You are entitled to receive witness fees and mileage actually traveled both ways. The money musl be paid, al the optlon of the parly giving notice of the deposition, either with service of this subpoena orat the lima of the deposition. Unless the court orders oryou agree otherwise, ifyou are being deposed as an Individual, the deposition must lake place within 75 miles ofyour residence or within 150 miles ofyour residence jf the deposilion will be taken within the county of the court where the action is pending. The location ofthe deposition for all deponenls is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.250, DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF $500 AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY, Date Issued: July 8,2016 ELLEN E. TURNAGE b 717. alL) (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATUREDF-PERSONSSHING-SUBPOETA) (TITLE) (Proofof sarvice on reverse) Page 1 of 2 Form Adoplod for Mandatory Use Coda of Clvil Proceduro §§ 2020,310, Judlelal Council of California D EPOSITION SUBPOENA 2025,220, 2025.230, 2025,250, 2025.620 SUDP-015 [Rev. Janury 1, 2008) FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE Govemmanl Coda,§ 86087.1 wnv.courlinfo.ca.gov SUBP-015 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Anzhelina Maronyan & T.yudmila Maronyan CASE NUMBER: * DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Mercedes-Benz USA LLC EC063837 PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE 1. [served lhis Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance by personally delivering a copy to the person served as follows: a. Person served (name). Felipe Pablo b. Address where served: 53g5 E |a Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92807 c. Date of delivery: 7/12/16 d. Time of delivery: 10:10 am e. Witness fees and mileage both ways (check one): (177 were paid. Amount: ........... $ (2) (X_] were notpaid. (3) [] were tendered to the witness's public entity employer as required by Government Code section 8097.2. The amount tendered was (specify): ........ $ f. Fee for service: . Saas 2. | received this subpoena for service on (date): 7/11/16 3. Person serving: Not a registered California process server California sheriff or marshal Registered California process server LU AO O [ [] Registered professional photocopier @ ~ 0 a o 0 o w i = George Sano: Southwest Legal Services, LLC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Sulte 103 San Diego, CA 92108 618-955-7225 County: Orange ID No.: PSC2623 | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 7/14/18 (SIGNATURE) Employee or independent contractorof a registered California process server Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b) Exempt from reglstration under Business and Professions Code section 22451 Name, address, telephone number, and, if applicable, county of registration and number: (For California sheriff or marshal use only) | certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: (SIGNATURE) SUBP-015 [Rev. January 1, 2009) PROOF OF SERVICE OF Page 202 DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE EXHIBIT E SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT ANZHELINA MARONYAN, an individual; and LYUDMILA MARONYAN, an individual, Plaintiffs, VS. CASE NO. EC063837 MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, a business entity; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. DEPOSITION OF DAN CALEF Irvine, California Friday, July 29, 2016 REPORTED BY: Kyung Lee-Green, CSR No. 12655, CLR REF: 16769 Page 1 TransPerfect Legal Solutions 212-400-8845 -- Depo@transperfect.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 22 that would be, you know, reviewing all the photographs, the videos, the depositions and exhibits that -- that have been taken so far, the -- the various items in discovery and all of that stuff, getting ready for today, putting together the binder and -- and setting all of those documents up, et cetera. Prior to that, I've looked at the vehicle a couple of times. So I've got inspection time I'm going to guess in the neighborhood of probably seven or eight hours total including travel. I wasn't at the defense inspection on this one. So I think that's about it. Q And then the -- for the seven to eight hours you spent, including travel, Q What depo transcripts did you review in this TransPerfect Legal Solutions 212-400-8845 -- Depoltransperfect.com Journal Technologies Court Portal Make a Reservation ANZHELINA MARONYAN VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC Case Number: EC063837 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) Date Filed: 2015-05-08 Location: Glendale Courthouse - Department E Reservation Case Name: ANZHELINA MARONYAN VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC Type: Motion to Tax Costs Party: MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC (Defendant) Date/Time: 02/08/2019 8:30 AM Reservation ID: 118841924105 Fees Description Motion to Tax Costs Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) TOTAL Payment Amount: $61.65 Account Number: XXXX2314 ~ B4Print Receipt + Reserve Another Hearing Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved. Case Number: EC063837 Status: RESERVED Location: Glendale Courthouse - Department E Number of Motions: i Confirmation Code: CR-WDVYS6YPJEKNLIBXG Fee Qty 60.00 1 1.65 1 Type: Visa Authorization: 09538G Amount 60.00 1.65 $61.65 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 1am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1300, Los Angeles, CA 90025. On January 7, 2019 I served, in the manner indicated below, the foregoing document described as: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES- BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER onthe interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof, enclosed in sealed envelopes,at Los Angeles, CA addressed as follows: [SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused such envelopes to be delivered by courier, with next day service,to the offices of the addressees. (C.C.P. §1013(c)(d).) BY FACSIMILE: (C.C.P. § 1013(e)(f).) BY MAIL:I caused to be delivered by US mail by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated above. Iam “readily familiar” with the firm’s practicg of collection and processing documents for mailing. Underthat practice it would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. o BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelopes to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressees. (C.C.P. § 1011(a)(b).) BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I transmitted such document from Los Angeles, California, to the electronic mail address maintained by the person(s) on the SERVICE LIST as last indicated by that person on a documentthat he or she has filed in the above-entitled cause and served on this party. (C.C.P. § 1010.6(a)(6).) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on January 7, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. Sonja Robertson 800.020.A0 - 00353805.DOCX 1 BC580425 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 33 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE LIST MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC/MARONYAN Ellen E. Turnage, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 233-7770 (619) 297-1022 (FAX) clleniwestcoastlitivation.com Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (800) 400-6808 (800) 520-5523 (FAX) ak@kazlg.com 800.020.A0 - 00353805.DOCX (M127-094)(365.094) Case No. EC063837 Page 1 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ANZHELINA MARONYAN and LYUDMILA MARONYAN Attorneys for Plaintiffs ANZHELINA MARONYAN and LYUDMILA MARONYAN 2 BC580425 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY E. OAKS; [PROPOSED] ORDER