Opposition_defendants_opposition_to_plaintiffs_motion_to_strike_and_tax_costs

Motion

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.October 17, 2016

H A R T | K I N G A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 4 Hu TT tO N C E N T R E DR IV E, ST E. 90 0 S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 92 70 7 EN ~~ O N W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 William R. Hart, Esq., Bar No. 71127 whart@hartkinglaw.com James S. Morse, Esq., Bar No. 126212 jmorse@hartkinglaw.com HART | KING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900 Santa Ana, California 92707 Telephone: (714) 432-8700 Facsimile: (714) 546-7457 Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/08/2019 09:22 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Guladzhyan,Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Koury Engineering & Testing, Inc. and Defendants Koury Geotechnical Services, Inc., Richard D. Koury, Dave Menefee and Jacques Bertrand Roy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - VAN NUYS EAST TRISTAR REALTY GROUP, LLC and 18131 VENTURA BLVD, LLC, Plaintiffs, Vv. KOURY ENGINEERING & TESTING, INC., KOURY GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., RICHARD D. KOURY, DAVE MENEFEE, JACQUES BERTRAND ROY, and DOES 1-10, Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. Case No. LC104767 Assigned for all purposes to: Judge: Shirley Watkins Dept: NW-T Unlimited Civil Case DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS; AND DECLARATION OF JAMES S. MORSE [Reservation No. 181203369949] DATE: TIME: DEPT: Action Filed: Trial Date: February 25, 2019 8:30 a.m. NW-T 10-17-16 05-23-18 58106.002/4834-8946-3942v.1 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS H A R T | K I N G A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 4 Hu tT to N C E N T R E DR IV E, ST E. 90 0 S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 92 70 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES LL INTRODUCTION There is no question that per this Court’s Judgment, Defendant and Cross- Complainant Koury Engineering & Testing, Inc. (“KET”) and its related entity and persons, Koury Geotechnical Services, Inc., Richard D. Koury, Dave Menefee, Jacques Bertrand Roy (collectively, “Co-Defendants”), are the prevailing parties herein entitled to an award of their costs. (See Exh. 3 to Shayefar Decl., p. 1, Ins. 25-28.) They therefore filed and served a Memorandum of Costs on November 13, 2018 seeking costs in the amount of $23,597.47 (the “Costs Memo”). (See Exh. 4 to Shayefar Decl.) Plaintiffs TriStar Realty Group, LLC (“TriStar”) and 18131 Ventura Blvd, LLC (“Ventura,” and collectively, “Plaintiffs”) now challenge several costs set forth in the Costs Memo. Their argument that the Costs Memo was not timely filed, however, is based upon a misstatement of the facts and the law. Moreover, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to establish, based upon admissible evidence, that any of the allowable costs were unreasonable, or that the costs requested were not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. As such, their Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs (“Motion”) should be denied, and the Court should enter an order awarding KET and the Co-Defendants their costs in the full amount sought. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This case arose out of a Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) between Plaintiff and Cross-defendant TriStar and Defendant and Cross-Complainant KET. Under the Agreement, KET was to provide inspectors deputized by the City of Los Angeles to perform special construction inspection and testing services. (See Morse Decl., q 3.) When a dispute arose between the parties arising from the Agreement, TriStar, along with its co-plaintiff, Ventura, filed this action on October 17, 2016 against KET and the Co- Defendants, asserting various claims related to an alleged dispute, breach, default or misrepresentation in connection with the Agreement. (Morse Decl., § 4.) Thereafter, on December 16, 2016, KET filed a cross-complaint against TriStar and Ventura, also seeking relief under various theories, all relating to the Agreement. (Morse Decl., § 5.) 58106.002/4834-8946-3942v.1 1 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS HA RT | K IN G A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 4 H u t t o n C E N T R E DR IV E, ST E. 90 0 S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 92 70 7 Substantial discovery was taken in the case, including numerous depositions. (Morse Decl., § 6.) Such discovery was warranted as evidenced by the fact that, as stated in their Trial Brief, TriStar and Ventura sought the sum of $477,865.58 in compensatory damages from KET and the Co-Defendants, plus punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. (Morse Decl., § 6.) In other words, KET, and the individual officers named as Co- Defendants, were all facing devastating financial losses if they did not prevail. KET’s and the Co-Defendants’ pre-trial efforts were ultimately successful. Following a three day bench trial before the Honorable John J. Kralik, Judge presiding, the Trial Court found that KET was owed money under its Cross-Complaint and that KET and the Co-Defendants were the prevailing parties. On October 15, 2018, the Trial Court entered its Judgment. After discussing each of the causes of action and the damages awarded to the parties thereunder and any applicable off-sets, the Trial Court awarded “a net judgment for KTS and against Tristar and Ventura in the amount of $46,609.91.” (Morse Decl, § 7 and Exh. 3 to Shayefar Decl, p. 1, Ins. 22-24.) KET and the Co- Defendants served Notice of Entry of Judgment by mail on October 24, 2018. (Morse Decl., § 8 and Exh. 3 to Shayefar Decl.) Thereafter, KET and the Co-Defendants filed and served their Costs Memo on November 13, 2018. (Morse Decl., 4 8 and Exh. 4 to Shayefar Decl.) III. THE COSTS MEMO WAS TIMELY FILED As Plaintiffs admit, California Rule of Court 3.1700(a)(1) provides in pertinent part: “A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of iemient or disrstal bor ife Sle sades Gots oF Cloll Brocsiers svaios 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever 1s first.” (Emphasis added.) The question thus becomes whether the Clerk of the Court served Notice of Entry of Judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5, or whether the service of written ! In the Judgment, the Trial Court used the designation “KTS” to refer to Koury Engineering & Testing, Inc. (KET) and the designation “KGS” to refer to Koury Geotechnical Services, Inc. (See Exh. 3 to Shayefar Decl) 58106.002/4834-8946-3942v.1 2 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS H A R T | K I N G A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 4 H u t t o N C E N T R E DR IV E, ST E. 90 0 SA NT A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 92 70 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 notice of entry of judgment by KET and the Co-Defendants triggered the 15-day deadline for the filing of the Costs Memo. The answer is the latter. Relying solely upon a post-marked envelope from the Superior Court, Plaintiffs claim that the Clerk of the Court served notice of entry of judgment on October 17, 2018. (Motion, p. 5, Ins. 13-15.) They are wrong. Indeed, not even their counsel, whose declaration they rely upon for their argument, does not allege that the Clerk served notice of entry of judgment. Rather, Mr. Shayefar only declares that “[t]he Judgement that I received from the Court came in an envelope that has a stamp cancellation date of October 17, 2018.” (Shayefar Decl., § 3.) A review of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 reveals the fallacy of Plaintiffs’ position. Section 664.5 makes clear that the party who submits a judgment for entry is required to serve notice of its entry and that the Clerk shall only serve notice of entry of judgment in a contested proceeding in which a prevailing party is not represented by counsel. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 664.5(a)(b). In that case, the Clerk “shall execute a certificate of service and place it in the court’s file in the case.” Id. Here, the prevailing parties are represented by counsel, who submitted the proposed Judgment for entry. (Morse Decl., § 1 and Exh. 1 to Shayefar Decl.) As such, while the Clerk may have mailed a courtesy copy of the Judgment to counsel, KET and Co-Defendants were required to serve notice of its entry, and thus, there was no certificate of service because the Clerk did not “serve” notice of entry of judgment pursuant to Section 664.5. This conclusion is exemplified by the opinion in Palmer v. GTE Cal., Inc. (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 1265, 1277 (2003), a case relied upon by Plaintiffs in making their argument (see Motion, p. 6): “To be service ‘pursuant to Section 664.5” (§§ 659, 660) the notice of entry of judgment mailed by the clerk must ‘affirmatively state’ it is given’ ‘upon order by the court’ or ‘under section 664.5’ (Van Beurden, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 64). Otherwise, the time limits for motions for a new trial or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (§ 629) are triggered by service on the moving party of ‘written notice’ of the ‘entry of judgment.” (§§ 659, 660.)” 58106.002/4834-8946-3942v.1 3 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS H A R T | K I N G A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 4 H u t t O N C E N T R E DR IV E, ST E. 90 0 S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 92 70 7 Oo 0 3 O N 10 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (Emphasis added.) No such notation appears anywhere on the Judgment that Mr. Shayefar declares that he received from the Court. (Shayefar Decl., § 2 and Exh. 1 thereto.) There was no service by the Clerk. Thus, the service of notice of entry of judgment by KET and the Co-Defendants was the trigger for the running of the 15-day deadline for the filing of the Costs Memo. Plaintiffs’ next argument - that the 5-day extension for mailing under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 does not apply - is also unavailing. As a preliminary matter, Rule of Court 8.60(a) provides that “[tlhe Code of Civil Procedure governs computing and extending the time to do any act required or permitted under these rules.” Section 1013(a) provides in pertinent part: “Service is complete at the time of the deposit, but any period of notice and any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended five calendar days, upon service by mail, if the place of address and the place of mailing is within the State of California, 10 calendar days if either the place of mailing or the place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States, and 20 calendar days if either the place of mailing or the place of address is outside the United States, but the extension shall not apply to extend the time for filing notice of intention to move for new trial, notice of intention to move to vacate judgment pursuant to Section 663a, or notice of a peal This extension applies in the absence of a specific exception provided for by this section or other statute or rule of court.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1013 (emphasis added). There is nothing within the language of Section 1013 that limits the extension to acts by the receiving party. (/d.) In fact, California law, from the Supreme Court down, makes clear that “any” means “any”: “From the earliest days of statehood we have interpreted ‘any’ to be broad, general and all embracing. In Davidson v. Dallas (1857) 8 Cal. 227, 239, this court declared the ‘word ‘any’ means every, and the expression ‘for these purposes or any of them’ in effect reads: ‘for the foregoing purposes and every of them.”” Cal. State Auto. Asso. Inter-Insurance Bureau v. Warwick (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 190, 195 (emphasis added); see also Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 26, 38 (“The term ‘any’ (particularly in a statute) means ‘all’ or ‘every.””); Estate of Wyman (1962) 208 Cal. App. 2d 489, 492 (courts employ “The dictionary definition of the word ‘any’ as ‘all’” in statutory interpretation). Thus, had the Legislature wanted to limit the 58106.002/4834-8946-3942v.1 4 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS H A R T | K I N G A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 4 Hu tr to N C E N T R E DR IV E, ST E. 90 0 S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 92 70 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 0 23 24 25 26 27 28 five-day extension for “any right or duty to do any act” to only those parties receiving the notice, it would have done so. Further, as California law makes clear: “as a general rule of statutory construction, if a statute announces a general rule and makes no exception thereto, the courts can make none. [Citation.] A court may not insert into a statute qualifying provisions not intended by the Legislature and may not rewrite a statute to conform to an assumed legislative intent not apparent.” Burnsed v. State Bd. of Control (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 213, 217; emphasis added (holding 2 that the term “any” is all embracing, broad and means “every”). As such, the 5-day extension for mailing applies to any act, regardless of whether it was undertaken by the party serving the notice or the party receiving it. Plaintiffs’ citation to Westrec Marina Mgmt. v. Jardine Ins. Brokers Orange Cty. (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 1042, does not change the analysis. In Westrec, the sole question before the Court was “whether section 1013 extends the deadline for the court to act under section 660” in granting a motion for new trial. Id. at 1047. While the Westrec Court opined in dicta its understanding of the legislative history underlying Section 1013, the Westrec Court did not rule upon the question as to whether or not Section 1013 would extend the time for a prevailing party to file a memorandum of costs (or to do any other act), when that memorandum was served by mail. Instead, it was limited to the issue of whether the Court, which had no interaction with a notice of entry, could extend its 60-day statutory period to rule upon a motion for new trial based upon the 5-day extension for mailing under Section 1013. Id. at 1048-1049. Because both the facts and issue in Westrec were different from the facts and issue involved here, the opinion does not apply. See Ginns v. Savage (1964) 61 Cal.2d 520, 524, fn. 2 (“[llanguage used in any opinion is of course to be understood in the light of the facts and the issue then before the court, and an opinion is not authority for a proposition not therein considered”). Notice of Entry of Judgment was served by mail on October 24, 2018. (Morse Decl., § 8, and Exh. 3 to Shayefar Decl.) The fifteenth day thereafter fell on November 8, 2018. Adding an extension of five days for service by mail yields a deadline of November 58106.002/4834-8946-3942v. 1 5 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS H A R T | K I N G A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 4 H u t r o N C E N T R E DR IV E, ST E. 90 0 SA NT A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 92 70 7 13, 2018. Because the Costs Memo was filed on November 13, 2018, it was timely. (See Morse Decl., § 8 and Exh. 4 to Shayefar Decl.) IV. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO MEET THEIR BURDEN TO ESTABLISH THAT ANY OF THE COSTS SOUGHT ARE UNREASONABLE Although “the mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a ‘proper objection’ to an item” on a memorandum of costs, ““[i]f the items appear to be proper charges the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred by the defendant: [¢ itations], and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or unreasonable is upon the [objecting party].’ [Citations.)” Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 111, 131. While Plaintiffs object to the Costs Memo as a whole as being “prima facie unreasonable,” and they object to certain line items on the Costs Memo, they have not met their burden to establish, based upon admissible evidence, that any of the costs sought are improper. A. The Requests For Costs Are Not “Prima Facie” Unreasonable Plaintiffs argue that solely by virtue of the fact that KET and the Co-Defendants are seeking $23,597.47 in costs, which is more than half of the damages that they were awarded, that the costs sought are unreasonable on their face. (Motion, pp. 7-8.) This argument makes no sense. Not only do Plaintiffs fail to cite any authority for this novel position, it wholly ignores that not only did KET and the Co-Defendants achieve an affirmative award of over $46,000.00, they defeated Plaintiffs’ claim for $477,865.58 in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. (See Morse Decl., § 6.) Surely, Plaintiffs cannot seriously argue that incurring $23,000.00 in costs to defend a claim that could potentially exceed well over a half a million dollars is unreasonable! Indeed, the Co-Defendants did not even have an affirmative claim, yet per this Court’s Judgment, they are still entitled to costs. (Exh. 1 to Shayefar Decl, p. 1, Ins. 25-28.) The Costs Memo must be reviewed for reasonableness in terms of what was actually at stake in the litigation, not just in terms of the amount awarded to KET. Under Plaintiffs’ 58106.002/4834-8946-3942v.1 6 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS H A R T | K I N G A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 4 H u t T O N C E N T R E DR IV E, ST E. 90 0 S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 92 70 7 R OO 00 3 O N Win 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 theory costs would not be awarded for a defense verdict because the recovery is balanced. Here, the Defendants and Cross-Complaint prevailed as stated by the trial judge. B. The Costs Of The Deposition Transcripts Were Reasonable And Necessary Plaintiffs present a long discourse regarding their purported issues with deposition scheduling in order to make their argument that the deposition transcripts should be cut in half because, supposedly, due to claimed dilatory conduct, KET and the Co-Defendants incurred unnecessary costs for expedited transcripts and rough drafts. (Motion, pp. 8-11.) Aside from the fact that this “water under the bridge,” and Plaintiffs could have moved at any time for an order compelling appearance at deposition had they truly believed there was an issue, Plaintiffs have not submitted even a shred of evidence that any such unnecessary charges were incurred. Indeed, despite that the majority of depositions identified were taken by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Shayefar is completely silent in his declaration regarding any extra costs incurred by the parties as a result of KET’s and the Co- Defendants’ alleged dilatory conduct. (See Shayefar Decl., § 7-22.) As demonstrated by the invoices for deposition transcripts that are attached to the Morse Declaration as Exhibit A, KET and the Co-Defendants did not incur any extra charges for expediting transcripts, or for the preparation of rough drafts. (See Exh. A to Morse Decl.) As such, Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof to show that the costs for deposition transcripts were unreasonable, and they should be awarded to KET and the Co-Defendants in full. See Nelson, 72 Cal. App. 4th at 131. C. The Costs Of The Videotaped Depositions Were Reasonable And Necessary The costs of videotaping depositions are specifically recoverable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(3)(A). To that end, the Judicial Council form Memorandum of Costs (Worksheet) specifically list contains a line item space for the costs of videotaping depositions. (See Exh. 4 to Shayefar Decl.) Plaintiffs nevertheless complain, without citing any authority therefore, that the costs of videotaping depositions 58106.002/4834-8946-3942v.1 7 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS H A R T | K I N G A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 4 Hu tT tO N C E N T R E DR IV E, ST E. 90 0 S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 92 70 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 should be stricken because the trial herein was scheduled as a bench trial and “there was no question that Plaintiffs’ two witnesses were to appear. . ..” (Motion, p. 12.) This too is nonsensical. Plaintiffs’ two witnesses were known to be potentially volatile. (Morse Decl., § 9.) Even though the trial was scheduled to be three weeks away, there was no way to know whether they would appear at trial, or whether some unexpected intervening event might occur. Given the huge amount of potential damages at issue, there was nothing unreasonable in videotaping their depositions so that the Trial Court could see the demeanor of the witnesses to ascertain their credibility in the event that these witnesses did not appear at trial. (Morse Decl., §9.) The full amount of costs sought for videotaping these depositions should thus be awarded. See Seever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1550, 1557 (even though the videotaped depositions were not used at trial, the Court declined to find that the videotaping of depositions “was unnecessary and unreasonable”). D. The Costs of Photocopies Of Exhibits Were Reasonable And Necessary Plaintiffs attempt to mislead this Court with respect to the volume of photocopies of exhibits at trial. While it is true that over 13,000 pages were copied, these copies were made to produce four sets of exhibits - one for the Trial Court, one for the witnesses, one for Plaintiffs’ counsel, and one for defense counsel. Thus, each set was comprised of approximately 3,250 pages. (Morse Decl, 9 10.) Moreover, it must be remembered that KET and the Co-Defendants had to rebut Plaintiffs’ case, which was unknown at the time the exhibit books were put together. If KET and the Co-Defendants did not include every exhibit that they thought might be relevant, it was likely that Plaintiffs would have accused them of “holding back” such documents and, therefore, KET and Co-Defendants would have been at risk of having the exhibits not be admitted. (Morse Decl., § 10.) Finally, Defendants’ Exhibits 100 through 136 were the thick monthly invoices that were issued, which included the inspection reports, and thus comprised three thick binders (12 total copied) and an extensive number of pages. All of these invoices were introduced 58106.002/4834-8946-3942v, 1 8 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS H A R T | K I N G A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 4 H u t T o N C E N T R E DR IV E, ST E. 90 0 S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 92 70 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and admitted at trial and were crucial to establish the scope of the inspections and the quantum meruit of the work performed. (Morse Decl., § 11.) As such, the full costs of the trial exhibits should be awarded to KET and the Co-Defendants. E. The Mediation Costs Were Reasonable And Necessary Plaintiffs next complain about $2,145.00 in costs incurred in connection with a mediation. Their complaints are without merit. As discussed by the Court in Gibson v. Bobroff (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 1202, 1207: “Section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(4), authorizes the trial court to exercise its discretion to award costs for items not specifically allowed nor prohibited under subdivisions (a) and (b), so long as they are ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.’ The Court, in affirming the lower court’s award of costs incurred in mediation, opined: “Encouraging the parties to resolve lawsuits at the earliest time and before a costly and time-consuming trial, is a necessary part of litigation as conducted in this state. The award of mediation fees is no less reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation, than the award of arbitrator’s fees affirmed in the Boyd decision (ante, p. 1208), which costs are also statutorily authorized by section 1141.21, subdivision (a)(iv).” Id. at 1209-10 (emphasis added). Given the amount large amount of damages at issue herein, it was reasonably necessary for the parties to participate in mediation with the hope that their dispute would be resolved. The Court should exercise its discretion and award KET and the Co-Defendants the reasonable costs they incurred in connection with the mediation. F. The Messenger Fees Were Reasonable And Necessary Finally, Plaintiffs take issue with the request for $407.93 in messenger fees. The messenger charges were incurred to transport multiple boxes of exhibit binders and other trial documents to and from the Court and to opposing counsel office. (Morse Decl., § 12 and Exh. B thereto.) This issue was addressed by the Court in Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 761. Like the Gibson Court, the Ladas Court recognized that “[a]n item not specifically allowable under subdivision (a) nor prohibited under subdivision (b) may nevertheless be recoverable in the discretion of the court if ‘reasonably necessary 58106.002/4834-8946-3942v.1 9 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS HA RT | K IN G A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 4 H u t t o N C E N T R E DR IV E, ST E. 90 0 S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 92 70 7 FN ~~ O N W h 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.’” Id. at 774. The Court of Appeal in Ladas held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $2,518.91 for courier and messenger charges, where these charges “were related to trial preparation, and were incurred for such matters as filing documents with the court, complying with appellants’ document demands, and transporting exhibits to and from the courtroom,” and therefore were reasonably necessary. Id. at 776. Similarly here, the messenger charges were incurred to transport the boxes of exhibit binders and other trial documents to and from Court and to opposing counsel Shayefar’s office. (Morse Decl., § 12 and Exh. B thereto.) These were reasonable and necessary expenses that should be awarded to KET and the Co-Defendants in the Court’s discretion. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Co-Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Motion and award the Co-Defendants all of their reasonable costs sought in the Costs Memo, in the amount of $23,597.47. Dated: February 8, 2019 HART | KING se Ms, S Noee \ William R. Hart James S. Morse Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Koury Engineering & Testing, Inc. and Defendants Koury Geotechnical Services, Inc., Richard D. Koury, Dave Menefee and Jacques Bertrand Roy 58106.002/4834-8946-3942v.1 10 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS HA RT | K IN G A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 4 H u t t o N C E N T R E DR IV E, ST E. 90 0 S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 92 70 7 DECLARATION OF JAMES S. MORSE I, JAMES S. MORSE, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts in the State of California, and am a partner of the law firm of Hart King (“HK”), attorneys of record for Defendant and Cross-Complainant Koury Engineering & Testing, Inc. (“KET”) and Defendants Koury Geotechnical Services, Inc., Richard D. Koury, Dave Menefee and Jacques Bertrand Roy (collectively, “Co-Defendants”) in this action. The facts set forth herein are true of my own personal knowledge and if called as a witness I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. I am one of the responsible attorneys in this action and served as trial counsel. I make this declaration in support of the Co-Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs. 3. This case arose out of a Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) between Plaintiff and Cross-defendant TriStar Realty Group, LLC (“TriStar”) and KET. Under the Agreement, KET was to provide inspectors deputized by the City of Los Angeles to perform special construction inspection and testing services. A true and correct copy of the Agreement (without its exhibits), which was admitted as an exhibit at trial, is attached as Exhibit A to my Declaration filed with KET’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Fees Motion”) being heard concurrently herewith. 4. When a dispute arose between the parties arising from the contract, TriStar, along with its co-plaintiff, 18131 Ventura Blvd, LLC (“Ventura”), filed this action on October 17, 2016 against KET, and the Co-Defendants, asserting various claims related to an alleged dispute, breach, default or misrepresentation in connection with the Agreement. A true and correct copy of the Complaint, without exhibits, is attached as Exhibit B to my Declaration filed with KET’s Fees Motion being heard concurrently herewith. 5. Thereafter, on December 16, 2016, KET filed a cross-complaint against TriStar and Ventura, also seeking relief under various theories, all relating to the Agreement. A true and correct copy of the Cross-complaint, without exhibits, is attached 58106.002/4834-8946-3942v.1 11 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS H A R T | K I N G A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 4 Hu tt Oo N C E N T R E DR IV E, ST E. 90 0 S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 92 70 7 as Exhibit C to my Declaration filed with KET’s Fees Motion being heard concurrently herewith. 6. Substantial discovery was taken in the case, including numerous depositions. Such discovery was warranted as evidenced by the fact that, as stated in their Trial Brief, TriStar and Ventura sought the sum of $477,865.58 in compensatory damages from KET and its Co-Defendants, plus punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. 7. KET’s and the Co-Defendants’ pre-trial efforts were ultimately successful. Following a three day bench trial before the Honorable John J. Kralik, Judge presiding, the Trial Court found that KET and the Co-Defendants were the prevailing parties. On October 15, 2018, the Trial Court entered its Judgment. After discussing each of the causes of action and the damages awarded to the parties thereunder and any applicable off-sets, the Trial Court awarded “a net judgment for KTS and against Tristar and Ventura in the amount of $46,609.91.” (See Exh. 3 to Shayefar Decl., p. 1, Ins. 23-24.) 8. KET and the Co-Defendants served Notice of Entry of Judgment by mail on October 24, 2018. (See Exh. 3 to Shayefar Decl.) Thereafter, KET and the Co-Defendants filed and served their Costs Memo on November 13, 2018. (See Exh. 4 to Shayefar Decl.) 9. My clients, having worked directly with Plaintiffs’ two witnesses, Robin Kashani and Daniel Kashani, knew them to be potentially volatile. Even though the trial was scheduled to be three weeks away, there was no way for me to know whether they would appear at trial, or whether some unexpected intervening event might occur. Given the huge amount of potential damages at issue, I believed that it was reasonable and necessary to videotape their depositions so that the Trial Court could see the demeanor of these witnesses to ascertain their credibility in the event that these witnesses did not appear at trial. True and correct copies of the invoices for all of the depositions reflected on the Memorandum of Costs (Worksheet), for both written transcripts and videotaping, are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit A. 10. While KET and the Co-Defendants had over 13,000 pages copied for trial exhibits, these copies were made to produce four sets of exhibits - one for the Trial Court, 58106.002/4834-8946-3942v.1 12 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS H A R T | K I N G A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 4 H u t T O N C E N T R E DR IV E, ST E. 90 0 S A N T A AN A, C A L I F O R N I A 92 70 7 Sn ~N O N W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 one for the witnesses, one for Plaintiffs’ counsel, and one for defense counsel. Thus, each set was comprised of approximately 3,250 pages. As Defendants, KET and the Co- Defendants were required to rebut Plaintiffs’ case, which was unknown at the time the exhibit books were put together. It was my reasonable belief while preparing for trial that, if KET and the Co-Defendants did not include every exhibit that they thought might be relevant, it was likely that Plaintiffs would have accused them of “holding back” such documents and, therefore, KET and Co-Defendants would have been at risk of having those exhibits not be admitted. 11. Exhibits 100 through approximately 130 were the thick monthly invoices that were issued, which included the inspection reports, and thus comprised an extensive number of pages. All of these invoices were introduced and admitted at trial and were crucial to establish the scope of the inspections and the quantum meruit of the work performed. 12. KET and the Co-Defendants seek $407.93 in costs for messenger fees. As evidenced by the invoices from our firm’s attorney service, First Legal Network, LLC, true and correct copies of which are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit B, the messenger charges were incurred to transport the exhibit binders and other trial documents to and from Court and to opposing counsel Shayefar’s office. Such expenses were reasonable and necessary to the firm’s representation of our clients at trial. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 8, 2019, at Santa Ana, California. SP ter 4. ‘ J Verte <_ James S. Morse 58106.002/4834-8946-3942v.1 13 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS EXHIBIT “A” 1875 Century Park East, Suite H _ INVOICE fe : Los Angeles, CA 80067 \_./ ON-CALL T 310.858.9800 mice: 148138.1 LEGAL OnCallLegal.com Invoice Date: 4/ 7 2018 Case Name: Tristar Realty v. Koury + Ha ont » LC104767 4 utto Centre Drive, Suite 900 Case Number: Santa Ana, CA 92707 Billing Ref. No.: 58106.002 PO 32135 Deponent/Hearing Info: Dave Menefee Order By: James S. Morse, Esq. Depo/Hearing Date: 03/26/2018 Description Quantity Rate | Amount Deposition - Expert Witness 268 545 per page 1,460.60 Word Index 56 0.50 per pi 28.00 Condensed Transcript | 15.00 each 15.00 Processing & Handling 15.00 15.00 Make checks payable to On-Call Court Reporters. Thank you. We appreciate your business, 1 Tax ID# 80-0200746 ZT 1875 Century Park East, Suite H “ : Los Angeles, CA 90067 No /ON-CALL r310.58.9800 LEGAL (OnCallLegal.com Case Name: Case Number: LC104767 Hart King 4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900 INVOICE Invoice #: 1 48138.2 Invoice Date: 4/9/2018 Tristar Realty v. Koury Santa Ana, CA 92707 Billing Ref. No.: 58106.002 PO 32135 Deponent/Hearing Info: Exhibits Order By: James S. Morse, Esq. Depo/Hearing Date: 03/26/2018 Description Quantity Rate Amount Exhibits (black & white) 390 0.40 per page 156.00 Exhibit Tabs 44 0.25 11.00 Electronic/PDF Transcript 15.00 15.00 Thank you. We appreciate your business. Tax ID# 80-0200746 Make checks payable to On-Call Court Reporters. 1875 Century Park East, Suite H oo INVOICE EL Los Angeles, CA 90067 ‘\- ON-CALL T 310.658.9500 woot: 148139A.1 LEGAL QOnCallLegal.com Invoice Date: 4/ 7/2018 Hart King C ase Name: Tristar Realty v. Koury 4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900 Case Number: LC104767 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Billing Ref. No.: 58106.002 PO 32134 Deponent/Hearing Info: Jacques Bertrand Roy Order By: James §, Morse, Esq, Depo/Hearing Date: 03/27/2018 Description Quantity Rate Amount Deposition - Expert Witness 59 5.45 per page 321.55 Word Index | 12 0.50 per page 6.00 Condensed Transcript 1 15.00 each 15.00 Processing & Flandling 15.00 15.00 Hand Delivery 85.00 85.00 l 25.00 each 25.00 D.V.D.(s) Make checks payable to On-Call Court Reporters. Thank you. We appreciate your business. Tax ID# 80-0200746 1875 Century Park East, Suite H - INVOICE ( ; Los Angeles, CA 90067 Ns ON = CALL = -358.9800 Invoice #: 1 481398. 1 LEGAL OnCallLegal.com Invoice Date: 4/7/2018 Case Name: Tristar Realty v. Koury Hart King 4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900 Cos hmmtes LE1G4I07 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Billing Ref. No.: 58106.002 PO 32134 Deponent/Hearing Info: Michele Shams Order By: James S. Morse, Esq. Depo/Hearing Date: 03/27/2018 Description Quantity Rate Amount Deposition = Expert Witness 178 5.45 per page 970.10 Word Index 35 0.50 per page 17.50 Condensed Transcript ! 15.00 each 15.00 Processing & Handling 15.00 15.00 D.V.D.(s) 3 25.00 cach 75.00 Make checks payable to On-Call Court Reporters. Thank you, We appreciate your business. Tax ID# 80-0200746 1875 Century Park East, Suite H - INVOICE e 5 Los Angeles, CA 90067 \...” ON-CALL T 310-858-9800 wise: 148140B.1 LEGAL OnCallLegal.com Invoice Date; 4/7/2018 Case Name: Tristar Realty v. Koury Hart King 4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900 CaseNumber, LT104767 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Billing Ref. No.: 58106.002 PO 32136 Deponent/Hearing Info: Tommy Wright Order By: James S. Morse, Esq. Depo/Hearing Date: 03/28/2018 Description Quantity Rate © Amount Deposition - Expert Witness 243 5.45 per page | 1,324.35 Word Index 50 0.50 per page 25.00 Condensed Transcript 1 15.00 euch 15.00 Processing & Handling 15.00 15.00 D.V.D.(s) 3 25.00 each | 75.00 Make checks payable to On-Call Court Reporters. Thank you. We appreciate your business. Tax ID# 80-0200746 HE 1875 Century Park East, Suite H : 3 Los Angeles, CA 90067 N_/ON-CALL 3108585800 LEGAL OnCallLegal.com Hart King 4 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 900 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Order By: James S. Morse, Esq. INVOICE Invoice #. 148140A. 1 Invoice Date: 4/7/2018 Case Name: Tristar Realty v. Koury Case Number: LC104767 Billing Ref. No.: 58106.002 PO 32136 Deponent/Hearing Info: Richard D., Koury Depo/Hearing Date: 03/28/2018 D.V.D.(s) Description Quantity Rate Amount Deposition - Expert Witness 80 5.45 per page 436.00 Word Index 16 0.50 per page 8.00 Condensed Transcript 1 15.00 each 15.00 Processing & Handling 15.00 oo 15.00 1 25.00 each 25.00 Make checks payable to On-Call Court Reporters. Thank you, We appreciate your business. Tax ID# 80-0200746 Hohn 8 Bonarsock Division V E R T E X T 20 Corporate Park, #350 LEGAL SOLUTIONS Irvine CA 92606 Tel. 800.660.3187 Fax. 714.662.1398 Fed. Tax ID: 20-3132569 Bill To; James S. Morse Esq. Invoice #: 0C3312234 Hart King : . 4 Hutton Centre Drive Invoice Date: 4/17/2018 Suite 900 Balance Due: $956.13 Santa Ana, CA, 92707 Casas Tristar Realty Group, LLP v. Koury Engineering & Testing, Inc., Billing reference: 58106.002 PO 31836 ' Et Al Job #: 2851071 | Job Date: 4/5/2018 | Delivery: Normal Billing Atty: James S. Morse Esq. Location: Hart King 4 Hutton Centre Drive | Suite 900 | Santa Ana, CA 92707 Sched Atty: James S. Morse Esq. | Hart King Witness Description Units: Quantity Amoun Video - Initial Fee 1 1.00 $275.00 Video - Additional Hours Hour 3.25 $308.75 Daniel Kashani Video - Extended Hours Surcharge Hour 1.75 $249.38 Video - Media and Cloud Services Per disk 4.00 $88.00 Shipping & Handling - Video Media Package 1.00 $35.00 Notes: Invoice Total: $956.13 Payment; $0.00 Credit: $0.00 Interest: $0.00 Balance Due: $956.13 TERMS: Payable upon receipt. Accounts 30 days past due will bear a finance charge of 1.5% per month. Accounts unpaid after 90 days agree to pay all collection costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. Contact us to correct payment errors. No adjustments will be made after 90 days. For more information on charges related to our services please consult http://www .veritext.com/services/all-services/services-information . Invoice #: 0C3312234 . Please remit payment to: To pay online, go to Veritext Job #: 2851071 www.veritext.com P.O. Box 71303 Invoice Date: 4/17/2018 Chicago IL 60694-1303 Balance: $956.13 Veritext accepts all major credit cards 110925 / C (American Express, Mastercard, Visa, Discover) 110925 Veritext Corp Hahn & Bowersock Division 20 Corporate Park, #350 Irvine CA 92606 Tel. 800.660.3187 Fax. 714.662.1398 Fed. Tax ID: 20-3132569 ITEXT LEGAL SOLUTIONS Bill To: James S. Morse Esq. Invoice #: 0C3310689 Hart King : . 4 Hutton Centre Drive Invoice Date: 4/17/2018 Suite 900 Balance Due: $2,032.25 Santa Ana, CA, 92707 Case: Tristar Realty Group, LLP v. Koury Engineering & Testing, Inc., Billing reference: 58106.002 PO 31836 ’ Et Al Job #: 2851071 | Job Date: 4/5/2018 | Delivery: Expedited Billing Atty: James S. Morse Esq. Location: Hart King Sched Atty: James S. Morse Esq. | Hart King 4 Hutton Centre Drive | Suite 900 | Santa Ana, CA 92707 Witness Description Amc int Daniel Kashani Original with 1 Certified Transcript $2,032.25 Notes: Invoice Total: $2,032.25 Payment: $0.00 Credit: $0.00 Interest: $0.00 Balance Due: $2,032.25 commen please consult http://www.veritext.com/services/all-services/services-information TERMS: Payable upon receipt. Accounts 30 days past due will bear a finance charge of 1.5% per month. Accounts unpaid after 90 days agree to pay all collection costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. Contact us to correct payment errors. No adjustments will be made after 90 days. For more information on charges related to our services To pay online, go to www.veritext.com Veritext accepts all major credit cards (American Express, Mastercard, Visa, Discover) Please remit payment to: Veritext P.O. Box 71303 Chicago IL 60694-1303 Invoice #: 0C3310689 Job #: 2851071 invoice Date: 4/17/2018 Balance: $2,032.25 Hohn 8 Bomorsock Division V E R T E X T 20 Corporate Park, #350 LEGAL SOLUTIONS Irvine CA 92606 Tel. 800.660.3187 Fax. 714.662.1398 Fed. Tax ID: 20-3132569 Bill To: James S. Morse Esq. Invoice #: 0C3320113 Hart King . . 4 Hutton Centre Drive Invoice Date: 4/23/2018 Suite 900 Balance Due: $679.00 Santa Ana, CA, 92707 Case: Tristar Realty Group, LLP v. Koury Engineering & Testing, Inc., Billing reference: 58106.002 PO 31825 : Et Al. Job #: 2851057 | Job Date: 4/9/2018 | Delivery: Normal Billing Atty: James S. Morse Esq. Location: Hart King 4 Hutton Centre Drive | Suite 900 | Santa Ana, CA 92707 Sched Atty: William R. Hart | Hart King . Witness . Description . oo Units Quantity - mo nt Video - Initial Fee 1 1.00 $275.00 Video - Additional Hours Hour 3.00 $285.00 Mr. Robin Yahya Kashani, Vol. yigeo - Media and Cloud Services Per disk 3.00 $66.00 Parking Expense Per hour 1.00 $18.00 Shipping & Handling - Video Media Package 1.00 $35.00 Notes: Invoice Total: $679.00 Payment: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $679.00 TERMS: Payable upon receipt. Accounts 30 days past due will bear a finance charge of 1.5% per month. Accounts unpaid after 80 days agree to pay alt collection costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. Contact us to correct payment errors. No adjustments will be made after 90 days. For more information on charges related to our services please consult http://www.veritext.com/services/all-services/services-information . Invoice #: 0C3320113 Please remit payment to: To pay online, go to Veritext Job #: 2851057 www.veritext.com P.O. Box 71303 Invoice Date: 4/23/2018 15655 Veritext accepts all major credit cards Chicago IL 60694-1303 Balance: $679.00 (American Express, Mastercard, Visa, Discover) 110925 Bar sock Division V E R T E X T 20 Corporate Park, #350 LEGAL SOLUTIONS Irvine CA 92606 Tel. 800.660.3187 Fax. 714.662.1398 Fed. Tax ID: 20-3132569 Bill To: James S. Morse Esq. Invoice #: 0C3321143 Hart King . . 4 Hutton Centre Drive Invoice Date: 4/23/2018 Suite 900 Balance Due: $996.94 Santa Ana, CA, 92707 Case: Tristar Realty Group, LLP v. Koury Engineering & Testing, inc., Billing reference: 58106.002 PO 31825 ' Et Al. Job #: 2851057 | Job Date: 4/9/2018 | Delivery: Expedited Billing Atty: James S. Morse Esq. Location: Hart King 4 Hutton Centre Drive | Suite 900 | Santa Ana, CA 92707 Sched Atty: William R. Hart | Hart King . Witness Description | hinou Mr. Robin Yahya Kashani , Vol. Original with 1 Certified Transcript $996.94 Notes: Invoice Total: $996.94 Payment: $0.00 Credit: $0.00 Interest: $0.00 Balance Due: $996.94 TERMS: Payable upon receipt. Accounts 30 days past due will bear a finance charge of 1.5% per month. Accounts unpaid after 90 days agree to pay all collection costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. Contact us to correct payment errors. No adjustments will be made after 90 days. For more information on charges related to our services please consult http://www .veritext.com/services/all-services/services-information . Invoice #: 0C3321143 5 Please remit payment to: To pay online, go to Veritext Job #: 2851057 www.veritext.com P.O. Box 71303 Invoice Date: 4/23/2018 Chicago IL 60694-1303 Balance: $996.94 Veritext accepts all major credit cards (American Express, Mastercard, Visa, Discover) Veritext Corp Hahn & Bowersock Division 20 Corporate Park, #350 Irvine CA 92606 Tel. 800.660.3187 Fax. 714.662.1398 Fed. Tax ID: 20-3132569 VERITEXT LEGAL SOLUTIONS Bill To: James S. Morse Esq. Invoice #: 0C3313939 Hart King : . 4 Hatton Centre Dive Invoice Date: 4/20/2018 Suite 900 Balance Due: $1,104.75 Santa Ana, CA, 92707 Tristar Realty Group, LLP v. Koury Engineering & Testing, Inc., Billing reference: 58106.002 PO 31825 Case: Et Al Job #: 2839200 | Job Date: 4/13/2018 | Delivery: Expedited Billing Atty: James S. Morse Esq. Location: Hart King 4 Hutton Centre Drive | Suite 900 | Santa Ana, CA 92707 Sched Atty: William R. Hart | Hart King Witness Description Units Quantity I mount Original with 1 Certified Transcript Page 100.00 $936.00 Exhibits Per Page 245.00 $85.75 Mr. Robin Yahya Kashani, Vol. Litigation Package 1 1.00 $25.00 Production & Processing 1 1.00 $40.00 Parking Expense Per hour 1.00 $18.00 Notes: “Invoice Total: $1,104.75 . Payment: $0.00 Credit: $0.00 Interest: $0.00 Balance Due: $1,104.75 please consult http://www.veritext.com/services/all-services/services-information TERMS: Payable upon receipt. Accounts 30 days past due will bear a finance charge of 1.5% per month. Accounts unpaid after 90 days agree to pay all collection costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. Contact us to correct payment errors. No adjustments will be made after 80 days. For more information on charges related to our services Invoice #: 0C3313939 Please remit payment to: To pay online, go to Varitoxt Job #: 2839200 www.veritext.com P.O. Box 71303 Invoice Date: 4/20/2018 Tiais Veritext accepts all major credit cards Chicago IL 60694-1303 Balance: $1,104.75 (American Express, Mastercard, Visa, Discover) 110925 Veritext Corp Hahn & Bowersock Division 20 Corporate Park, #350 Irvine CA 92606 Tel. 800.660.3187 Fax. 714.662.1398 Fed. Tax ID: 20-3132569 Bill To: William R. Hart Hart King 4 Hutton Centre Drive Suite 900 Santa Ana, CA, 92707 VERITEXT LEGAL SOLUTIONS Invoice #: Invoice Date: Balance Due: 0C3323952 4/27/2018 $662.75 Tristar Realty Group, LLP v. Koury Engineering & Testing, Inc., Case: Et Al Job #: 2839200 | Job Date: 4/13/2018 | Delivery: Normal Billing Atty: William R. Hart Location: Hart King 4 Hutton Centre Drive | Suite 900 | Santa Ana, CA 92707 Sched Atty: William R. Hart | Hart King Billing reference: 58106.002 PO 31825 Witness Description Ament Robin Yahya Kashani Video - Initial Fee $662.75 Notes: $662.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $662.75 TERMS: Payable upon receipt. Accounts 30 days past due will bear a finance charge of 1.5% per month. Accounts unpaid after 90 days agree to pay all collection costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. Contact us to correct payment errors. No adjustments will be made after 90 days. For more information on charges related to our services please consult http://www. veritext.com/services/all-services/services-information To pay online, go to www.veritext.com Veritext accepts all major credit cards (American Express, Mastercard, Visa, Discover) Please remit payment to: Veritext P.O. Box 71303 Chicago IL 60694-1303 Invoice #: Job #: Invoice Date: Balance: 0C3323952 2839200 4/27/2018 $662.75 EXHIBIT “B” First Legal Network, LLC INVOICE P.O. Box 743451 Los’Angeles CA 90074-3451 TAX ID# 27-3093840 HART KING 4 HUTTON CENTRE DRIVE BILLING/PAYMENT QUESTIONS SUITE 900 CLIENT CARE (877)350-8698 SANTA ANA, CA 92707 | 30072832 7/15/18 coo Service Detall 7/03/18 11292474 | BAR LASC-VAN NUYS HART KING Base Chg : 113.00 6230 SYLMAR AVENUE 4 HUTTON CENTER DRIVE Fuel Chg : 10.17 123.17 RESEARCH-BRANCH SAME DAY VAN NUYS CA 91401 SANTA ANA CA 92707 Caller: Laurie Moan LC104767 GO TO DEPT NW-T TRISTAR REALTY GROUP V. KOURY AND PICK TRIAL EXHIB GO TO DEPT NW-T AND PICK UP TRIAL E ITS/BINDERS Signed: obtained/pouched. Ref: 58106.002 PO 32699 th mad Total Charges for Ref. - 58106.002 PO 32699: 123.17 rpms rama X11 in| TM INVOICE PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT First Legal Network, LLC P.O. Box 743451 Los Angeles CA 90074-3451 TAX IDH 27-30938B40 HART KING 4 HUTTON CENTRE DRIVE SUITE 900 SANTA ANA, CA 92707 INVOICE BILLING/PAYMENT QUESTIONS CLIENT CARE (877)350-8698 4/20/18 DELIVERY-A Parlod Ending 4/30/18 Signed: Reanna Redmond (Dept) 11266318 | ASP HART XING 4 HUTTON CENTRE DRIVE BAP VEHICLE SANTA ANA CA 92707 Caller: Laurie Moan Wait: Total Charges for Ref. ‘Detall LASC-VAN NUYS 6230 SYLMAR AVENUE VAN NUYS CA 91401 35 Min PICK UP 5 BANKER BOXES AND DELIVER TO DEPT T IN VAN NUY S BEFORE NOON Ref: 58106.002 PO_32304 - 58106.002 PO 32304: ® 183.78 Base Chg Wait Weight Fuel Chg : 117.00 26.25 30.00 10.53 183.78 INVOICE PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT First Legal Network, LLC _INvoic E P.O. Box 743451 a No [ Customat Ne. | Los Angeles CA 90074-3451 TAX ID# 27-3083840 HART KING 4 HUTTON CENTRE DRIVE BILLING/PAYMENT QUESTIONS SUITE 3800 CLIENT CARE (877)350-8698 SANTA ANA, CA 92707 30067194 4/30/18 Service Detall. ~~ 4/20/18 | 11266319 | RSH HART KING LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW SHAYEFAR PC Base Chg 72.00 4 HUTTON CENTRE DRIVE 925 N. LA BREA AVE Weight : 22.50 DELIVERY -RPSH VEHICLE SANTA ANA CA 92707 LOS ANGELES CA 90038 Fuel Chg : 6.48 100.98 Caller: Laurie Moan PICK UP 3 BANKER BOXES DELIVER BY 3PM TO MATTHEW SHAYE FAR Signed: Paget Shand Ref: 58106.002 PO 32305 Total Charges for Ref. - 58106.002 PO 32305: 100.98 INVOICE PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OO © 3 O N WO» Bb W o = - t pe d p d pe e WwW N = OO H A R T | K I N G - wn A PR OF ES SI ON AL C O R P O R A T I O N 4 H u t t o n C E N T R E DR IV E, SU IT E 90 0 SA NT A AN A, CA LI FO RN IA 92 70 7 b o NN n o r o DN No No bo t - po t pd bt AN wh E N WI n o Ld