Opposition_to_plaintiffs_motion_to_tax_aecs_costsMotionCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.February 5, 2015Electronically FILED by 1 AN Ln W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 07/24/2020 11:12 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by | . Bradley,Deputy CI{ Madelyn A. Enright (Bar No. 110477) Matthew W. Johnson (Bar No. 192782) Mark A. Armstrong (Bar No. 302914) MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP 2603 Main Street, Penthouse Irvine, California 92614-6232 (949) 794-4000/FAX (949) 794-4099 menright@murtaughlaw.com mjohnson @murtaughlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant ADVANCED ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING, a corporation SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT GUL JAISINGHANT, an individual, CASE NO. SC123736 Plaintiff, Assigned For All Purposes To: Judge: Theresa M. Traber v. Dept: U ARMEN R. TER-OGANESIAN, et al., DEFENDANT ADVANCED ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING’S Defendants. OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TAX AEC’S COSTS HEARING: Date: August 6, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. U RES ID: 620886538725 Date of Filing: 2-5-15 Trial Date: 2-3-2020 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant ADVANCED ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING (“AEC”) hereby opposes Plaintiff GUL JAISINGHANT’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Tax AEC’s Costs as follows: I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs is without legal merit for any of its contentions. After a four-week jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants (including Johnson 2318518 -1- AEC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN Ln W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP Karam & Associates and all the defaulted parties) on all counts. Despite this undeniable fact, Plaintiff now contends that he may be found to be a prevailing party at a later date as it regards AEC’s costs memorandum. This is nonsensical. As set forth in the following, Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs should be denied in its entirety because: eo AEC’s memorandum of costs is not moot, it was filed after the conclusion of the jury trial whereat AEC was found by the jury to be not liable for any of Plaintiff’s claims. e Plaintiff will never be a prevailing party as to AEC, as AEC was found by the jury to be not liable for any of Plaintiff’s claims. e Plaintiff cannot pursue any claims against Johnson Karam and Associates or the other defaulted or non-appearing defendants as the jury’s verdict included those entities and none of those entities were found liable for any of Plaintiff’s claims. ¢ Plaintiff’s sole legal authority to support his motion is an unpublished opinion that is simply not legal authority in California. e Plaintiff’s motion fails to meet the burden required to put any of the costs at issue. eo AEC’s 998 Offer is enforceable and therefore AEC is entitled to recover its expert witness fees from the date of that offer. This matter was extensively litigated and after a four-week jury trial, Plaintiff lost on every single claim, against every single party. For Plaintiff to now contend the costs incurred by AEC are unrecoverable strains credulity and demonstrates that Plaintiff is not acting in good faith in contesting AEC’s costs. II. AEC’S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS IS NOT MOOT Plaintiff erroneously contends that a memorandum of costs is untimely where it is filed prior to when the Court enters judgment. There is no legal support for such a contention. In a factually similar circumstance, the Court of Appeal held that the filing of a memorandum of costs before the entry of judgment was nothing more than an irregularity. 2318518 a. AEC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN Ln W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP “Here, the defendants filed their memorandum of costs well before entry of judgment, which for some unexplained reason was entered more than two months after the jury returned its verdict. Thus, the memorandum was not late.” (Haley v. Casa Del Rey Homeowners Assn. (2007) 153 Cal. App.4th 863, 880.) Plaintiff is simply wrong as “courts treat prematurely filed cost bills as being timely filed.” (Id.) Plaintiff also contends that somehow Plaintiff could be the prevailing party because Plaintiff could have default judgements entered against other parties at a later date, thereby precluding AEC from seeking the recovery of its costs incurred in this litigation. Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(f) defines a prevailing party as “a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032.) AEC received a complete defense verdict from the jury after the trial in this action. Plaintiff did not recover any relief against AEC, nor any other defendant. There is no logical or legal rationale which would allow Plaintiff to be a prevailing party against AEC. As it regards the other defendants who Plaintiff seeks to default, the jury already settled the merits of those claims. The verdict form included Johnson Karam and Associates and the jury did not award any damages against that entity. Plaintiff cannot avoid that verdict and then proceed against Johnson Karam and Associates via default or any other proceeding. Similarly, the verdict form included a line item for non-parties, defaulted parties, and dismissed parties for each negligence cause of action. The jury specifically found that no one was negligent in causing Plaintiff’s alleged damages, which inherently includes non-parties and those who had been dismissed or defaulted. Plaintiff cannot now seek to have default judgment entered against those parties as the jury has already found them not liable for Plaintiff’s claims. It is apparent that Plaintiff believes he can instigate a collateral attack on the jury’s verdict via default judgments that will render AEC not a prevailing party. This is not supported by any legal reasoning and Plaintiff’s illogical argument should be dismissed by this Court entirely. 111 111 2318518 -3- AEC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN Ln W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP III. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY PRECEDENT TO SUPPORT HIS MOTION TO TAX COSTS Plaintiffs sole legal support for his contention that every line item in the memorandum of costs must be taxed because it is “unsubstantiated by evidence the cost was in fact incurred” is an unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeal. In California, unpublished opinions are prohibited from being relied upon by any party or court. (California Rules of Court Rule 8.1115.) It is a well-established rule that “Judicial decisions which the court and counsel were precluded from citing necessarily did not constitute authority binding upon the justice court.” (Nelson v. Justice Court (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 64, 66.) “Without precedential value, a depublished opinion is no longer part of the law and thus ceases to exist.” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 96, 109.) As the only authority relied upon by Plaintiff has no legal authority, Plaintiff’s entire motion is without legal support and should be dismissed in its entirety. IV. PLAINTIFF’S BLANKET STATEMENT THAT EACH COST IS IMPROPER COMPLETELY FAILS TO MEET HIS BURDEN “If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that were not reasonable or necessary.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. App.4th 761, 774.) Here, AEC has submitted a memorandum of costs showing reasonable costs as allowed by statute. The burden is on Plaintiff, the objecting party, to show those fees were not reasonable or necessary. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden entirely. A. Filing Fees Filing fees are expressly recoverable as costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a). Yet, Plaintiff contends that none of AEC’s motion or filing fees are reasonable. Why? Because Plaintiff believes that prevailing on the motions is a requirement for the filing fees to be considered reasonable. There is no legal support offered by Plaintiff for this contention, and as such, this Court would be well within its authority to ignore Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations. The Court’s record shows that AEC did incur these fees and it is 2318518 “4. AEC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN Ln W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP undeniable that AEC prevailed on the merits at trial. As such, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden that these fees were not reasonable or necessary. B. Jury Fees In what amounts to a bizarre statement, Plaintiff contends that the jury fees paid for by AEC were not reasonable or necessary. Plaintiff demanded a jury trial and AEC incurred costs as a result of Plaintiff’s demand for a jury. AEC had no discretion as to whether to pay these fees and the Court’s records show that AEC paid these fees. Plaintiff’s contention that these fees are not reasonable or necessary can be completely ignored. Plaintiff’s contention that these jury fees were split with the other defendants is a complete mischaracterization of the record. It is true that the parties split the total jury fees, however, AEC is not seeking to recover the total jury fees paid by all parties, AEC only seeks to recover the costs AEC actually paid. Plaintiff’s counsel was part of the discussion with this Court’s clerk regarding what portion of the jury fees each party was to pay. AEC paid the fees as set out by this Court’s clerk every day. This should be well known to Plaintiff’s counsel as he was standing in the court room when this Court’s clerk requested AEC’s counsel pay the jury fees. In fact, if AEC’s counsel had not paid the jury fees, the Court’s clerk advised that the day’s proceedings would not begin until AEC’s counsel submitted payment. For Plaintiff to now file a motion contending that AEC split these fees with other parties demonstrates Plaintiff’s complete lack of candor to the tribunal and Plaintiff’s repeated misrepresentation of the record. C. Deposition Costs “The burden of proof that the deposition was unnecessary or that the costs of taking the deposition were unreasonable is on the party seeking to have that item taxed or reduced.” (County of Kern v. Ginn (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1113.) Plaintiff contends that the taking of his own deposition and the depositions of his own experts were not reasonable or necessary costs because AEC “never called those individuals as witnesses at trial and were permitted to cross-examine them.” This contention is ridiculous on its face. Plaintiff and his experts were the only witnesses that could implicate AEC in this 2318518 -5- AEC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN Ln W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP litigation. AEC deposed those individuals to determine what, if anything, they could say to implicate AEC. AEC went on to use the deposition transcripts from those depositions to prepare for trial and to impeach Plaintiff and Mr. Norris at trial. These depositions were clearly necessary for this litigation and were reasonably incurred. Lastly, Plaintiff speculates that other defendants may have paid for these depositions. However, Plaintiff offers no evidence or facts to support this speculation and as such it should be summarily dismissed. D. Service of Process Fees Based on Plaintiff’s identification of Sylvia Arvayo as the person who allegedly executed the check made out jointly to AEC and Joel Silverman & Associates, AEC attempted to serve Ms. Arvayo with a deposition subpoena. It should be noted that Ms. Arvayo’s declaration in opposition to AEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment stated that she did not deposit the check into the AEC account. (See, Exhibit “A” attached to the Declaration of Mark L. Armstrong.) However, at trial, Plaintiff testified that Ms. Arvayo did deposit the check into the AEC account. Without Ms. Arvayo’s apparently false declaration, there would not have been a dispute of material fact and AEC would have prevailed on its motion for summary judgment and would not have incurred the costs of trial, expert witnesses, or depositions. Due to Ms. Arvayo’s declaration, AEC tried to have Ms. Arvayo sit for deposition. Plaintiff knew the subpoena went out, and likely told Ms. Arvayo to avoid service of the subpoena. AEC attempted to serve Ms. Arvayo at two separate locations on multiple dates. (See, Exhibit “B” attached to the Declaration of Mark L. Armstrong.) While AEC’s attempts at service were ultimately unsuccessful, AEC reasonably incurred these costs in the anticipation that Ms. Arvayo would testify at the trial of this matter, which she did during Plaintiffs rebuttal presentation. As such, these service fees were necessary and reasonable for the litigation and are therefore recoverable. 111 111 2318518 -6- AEC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN Ln W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP E. AEC’s Expert Witness Fees Code of Civil Procedure section 998 states in pertinent part: “(c) (1) If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer. In addition, in any action or proceeding other than an eminent domain action, the court or arbitrator, in its discretion, may require the plaintiff to pay a reasonable sum to cover postoffer costs of the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the defendant.” Here, AEC submitted its statutory offer to compromise to Plaintiff on April 5, 2019 in the amount of $25,000. Plaintiff did not accept that offer, and as AEC received a complete defense verdict at trial, Plaintiff did not obtain a more favorable judgment against AEC. Therefore, AEC has the right to seek the recovery of its expert fees incurred in this litigation. Plaintiff contends that AEC should not be allowed to recover its expert fees because AEC did not tell Plaintiff when those fees were incurred and AEC’s 998 Offer was not reasonable. To combat Plaintiff’s first point, the invoice for Mr. Williams’ fees are included with this opposition. (See, Exhibit “C” to the Declaration of Mark L. Armstrong.) As set forth in that invoice, Mr. Williams’ services were performed after the offer to compromise was served, thereby vitiating Plaintiffs first line of objections. As it regards the reasonableness of AEC’s 998 Offer, Plaintiff’s contentions against AEC were limited to solely the driveway and the allegations regarding the civil engineering performed on that driveway. AEC was never implicated in any other defects and therefore Plaintiff’s contention that the claim against AEC was for $4 million is simply wrong. At the time that AEC served its 998 Offer, the only thing connecting AEC to this litigation was a check for $2,500 made out jointly to AEC and Joel Silverman & Associates. AEC’s 998 Offer was for $25,000, ten times the amount of the check that allegedly showed AEC did work at the project. Further, Plaintiff’s own expert admitted that he had no opinions specific to AEC and never saw any plans or specifications prepared by AEC for the property. Thereby demonstrating that AEC’s potential liability was minimal at best. Plaintiff should have known that he had little to no chance of getting a verdict against 2318518 = = AEC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN Ln W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP AEC; there was simply no evidence that AEC prepared the design that was actually built. Therefore, AEC’s offer of $25,000 was not unreasonable, rather it reflected a judgment as to the merits of the litigation and the potential for AEC to be found liable based on the evidence produced by Plaintiff and the other parties in this litigation. Additionally, Plaintiff testified at trial and under oath that AEC was paid to repair the “crevice” at the property. As was thoroughly developed at trial, this “crevice” was not an identified defect and Plaintiff’s retained expert did not offer any cost to repair that crevice defect. Taking Plaintiffs sworn testimony as true, there was never a viable defect claim against AEC in this action and the 998 Offer was inherently reasonable. More importantly, the jury in this matter found that AEC was not negligent in performing any services for this project. The jury returned a complete defense verdict in favor of AEC, thereby demonstrating that the merits of the action did not warrant AEC offering a substantial sum to compromise. Taken in total, AEC’s offer to compromise was reasonable under the circumstances and reflected AEC’s potential liability at the time the offer was made. Therefore, AEC deserves to recover its expert witness fees as allowed by statute. V. CONCLUSION Every single contention made by Plaintiff in his Motion to Tax Costs is without merit. AEC’s memorandum of costs is timely, it meets the statutory requirements, and the costs delineated are reasonable and were incurred by AEC. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs should be denied in its entirety and this Court should award AEC costs in the amount of $37,674.41. Dated: July 24, 2020 MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP - By: Madelyn A. Enright Matthew W. Johnson Mark L. Armstrong Attorneys for Defendant ADVANCED ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING, a corporation 2318518 -8- AEC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AN Ln W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP DECLARATION OF MARK L. ARMSTRONG I, Mark L. Armstrong, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice before all the Courts in the State of California. I am a Senior Associate with MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP, attorneys of record for Defendant ADVANCED ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING (“AEC”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. In opposition to AEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff GUL JAISINGHANI (“Plaintiff”) submitted the declaration of Sylvia Arvayo, Plaintiff’s girlfriend. Through this declaration, Ms. Arvayo stated under penalty of perjury that she “never deposited a check for Advanced Engineering or JSA, or any other contractor.” However, during the trial of this matter, Plaintiff testified that it was Ms. Arvayo who deposited the check to AEC into AEC’s bank account. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of Ms. Arvayo’s declaration submitted in opposition to AEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 3. As this Court denied AEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment and held, “The Arvayo Declaration and the check itself create a triable issue of material fact as to AEC’s role in the project”, AEC attempted to take her deposition. As Plaintiff would not accept service of a subpoena on Ms. Arvayo’s behalf, AEC incurred the expense of attempting to serve Ms. Arvayo. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of the invoice for the attempts to serve Ms. Arvayo in this matter. 4. In this litigation, AEC retained the services of Warren Williams to act as the civil engineering expert. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a true and accurate copy of the invoices for Mr. Williams’s services arising from this litigation. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 24, 2020, at Irvine, California. me _ ---- Mark L. Armstrong 2318518 -1- DECLARATION OF MARK L. ARMSTRONG IN SUPPORT OF AEC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS Exhibit “A” 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 - 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 David T. Azrin, Esq. (pro hac vice) Kyle G. Kunst (SBN 279000) Gallet Dreyer & Berkey LLP 845 Third Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 935-3131 Facsimile: (212) 935-4514 Attorney for Plaintiff Gul Jaisinghani SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES GUL JAISINGEANT, ) CASE NO. SC123736 Plaintiff, ) v. ) DECLARATION OF SILVIA ARVAYO IN ) OPPOSITION TO ADVANCED ARMEN R. TER-OGANESIAN, an ) ENGINEERING & CONSULTING’S individual d/b/a ARMEN R. TER- ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OGANESIAN, G.C.; et. al., ) } ) Reservation Number: 180319298790 Defendants. ) ) Date: February 26, 2019 ) Time: 8:30 am AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS ) Before: the Honorable Elaine W. Mandel ) Department: P ) SILVIA ARVAYO’S DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO ADVANCED ENGINEERING & CONSULTING’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, Silvia Arvayo, hereby declare as follows: L I live in the Home, defined below, and have been in a relationship with the plaintiff, Gul Jaisinghani, during all times relevant to the facts described below. I have personal knowledge of the facts described below and could testify to those facts truthfully if so called. 2. This case relates to the construction of the home at 23244 Paloma Blanca, in Malibu, California (the “Subject Property”). 4 Throughout the construction of the Subject Property, I would periodically write checks on my joint account with my partner Gul Jaisinghani to subcontractors performing construction services on the Subject Property. 4. I wrote one such check, check number 776, to Advanced Engineering & Consulting, Inc. A true and correct copy of that check is attached as Exhibit 8. S. That check is written to Advanced Engineering only, and not also to Joel Silverman & Associates, Inc. (“JSA”). 6. I do not recall any individual from JSA asking me to write the check to Advanced Engineering, at any time. 7 I have written other checks to JSA. One such check is number 615, which was deposited on May 14, 2010. A true and correct copy of my Chase bank transaction detail which illustrates that check to JSA is attached as Exhibit 9. 8. Another check I have written to JSA is check number 688. A true and correct copy of that check is attached as Exhibit 10. 9. I have never deposited a check for Advanced Engineering or JSA, or any other contractor. There is no reason for me to do so. I make this declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the states of California, and I have executed this declaration on February ,2019 in , California. Silvia Arvayo SILVIA ARVAYO’S DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO ADVANCED ENGINEERING & CONSULTING’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2 Feb 08 1901:36p Gul Jaisinghani 14242352359 p.2 construction services on the Subject Property. 1. I wrote one such check, check number 776, to Advanced Engineering & Consulting, Inc. A true and correct copy of that check is attached as Exhibit 8. s. That check is written to Advanced Engineering only, and not also to Joel Silverman & Associates, Inc. (“JSA”). 6. I do not recall any individual from JSA asking me to write the check to Advanced Engineering, at any time. 7. I have written other checks to JSA. One such check is number 615, which was deposited on May 14, 2010. A true and correct copy of my Chase bank transaction detail which ilustrates that check to JSA is attached as Exhibit 9. . Another check I have written to JSA is check number 688. A true and correct copy of that check i s attached as Exhibit 10. © a. I have never deposited a check for Advanced Engineering or JSA, or any other contractor. There is no reason for me to do so. I make this declaration under penalty of perjury purs| angdo the Jaws of the states of California, and I have executed this declaration on February 5 -,2019 in el es California. Silvia Arvayo Exhibit “B” First Legal Netwc P.O. Box 743451 Los Angeles CA 90074-3451 TAX ID# 27-3093840 LLC MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP ATTN: TRUDY RANGEL INVOICE 30090244 BILLING/PAYMENT QUESTIONS 2603 MAIN STREET, 13TH FLOOR CLIENT CARE (877)350-8698 IRVINE, CA 92614 Customer No. | Invoice No. Period Ending Amount Due Pg 83421 30090244 3/15/19 1,586.27 1 Date Ordr No. Sve Service Detail Charges Total 2/27/19 11376434 | IMP MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP SILVIA ARVAYO Base Chg 145.50 2603 MAIN STREET 792 SUMMIT DRIVE Addt'1Chgs: 72.75 PROCESS - IMMEDIATE IRVINE CA 92614 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 Fuel Chg 1.3% 20 233.35 Caller: LEAH HULL Comment: 2 attempts §C123736 JAISINGHANT V TER-OGANESIAN DEPO.SUPBOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF PERSONAL ONLY PICTURE OF SUBJECT Signed: CANCEL SERVICE Ref: 174-16998 Total Charges for Ref. - 174-16998: 231.35 INVOICE PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT First Legal Netwot LC INVOIC E P.O. Box 743451 Los Angeles CA 90074-3451 30089080 TAX ID# 27-3093840 MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP ATTN: TRUDY RANGEL BILLING/PAYMENT QUESTIONS 2603 MAIN STREET, 13TH FLOOR CLIENT CARE (877)350-8698 IRVINE, CA 92614 a Customer No. Invoice No. Period Ending Amount Due Pg 83421 30089090 2/28/19 1,956.72 1 Date Ordr No. Sve Service Detail Charges Total 2/26/19 11376116 | BIM MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP SILVIA ARVAYO Base Chg : 184.00 2603 MAIN STREET 23244 PALOMA BLANCA Addt'1Chgs: 92.00 PROCESS -BRANCH IMMEDIATE IRVINE CA 92614 MALIBU CA 90265 Fuel Chg 16.56 292.56 Caller: LEAH HULL Comment: 2 attempts 5C123736 JAISINGHANT V TER-OGANESIAN DEPO.SUPBOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF PERSONAL ONLY PICTURE OF SUBJECT Signed: CANCEL DO DEC Ref: 174-16998 Total Charges for Ref. - 1174-16998: 292.56 INVOICE PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT Exhibit “C” Mark Armstrong Murtaugh Treglia Stern & Deily LLP Email: marmstrong@murtaughlaw.com Dear Mark Outlined below is a summary of tasks and the amount due this invoice. Fognnieoring, Irie. Invoice # 19-114-2 May 1-31, 2019 Jaisinghani / Expert Witness June 8, 2019 Task Task Description Contract Percent Charges to Date Previously Current Budget Remaining No. Amount Complete invoiced Invoice CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICEES Expert Witness Base Fee $2,500 100.0% $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 Subtotal $2,500] 100.0% $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 TIME AND MATERIALS SERVICES Expert Witness $1,000 100.0% $1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 Subtotal $1,000 100.0% $1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 Totals $3,500 100.0% $3,500 $2,500 $1,000 $0 Reimbursables (attached) $20.88 Total Due This Invoice: $1,020.88 EY Rate Ghargoy ~ ' Hin % BALG.GD $1,650.05) Sincerely. Warren Williams, Jr., PE, PLS Vice President | | bate Received: | Client Case No: Atty Approvals Pate Approved: Do Not Pay:[ ] ee sod Engineering, Inc. 6/8/2019 19-114-2 Net 30 MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP MARI ARMSTRONG a 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 ML ! 58 0.58 20.88 SUBTOTAL =! AlLE EXPENSES 20.88 Tota $1,020.88 CredidPymt $0.00 Total Due This Inv $1,020.88 Job #/ Project Description Notes ~ Miles Charges Desc / Date 18-114 MURTAUGH - JAISINGHANI : 5/22/2019 | WILLIAMS, WARREN UNITS = 36.00 mi COMMENT = Mtg at 36 $20.88 Murtaugh i 19-114 Total 36 $20.88 Mark Armstrong Murtaugh Treglia Stern & Deily LLP Email: marmstrong@murtaughlaw.com Engineering, inc. Invoice # 19-114-1 May 1-31, 2019 Jaisinghani / Expert Witness ls, California May 4, 2019 Dear Mark : Outlined below is a summary of tasks and the amount due this invoice. Task Task Description Contract Percent Charges to Date Previously Current Budget Remaining No. Amount Complete invoiced Invoice CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICEES Expert Witness Base Fee $2,500 100.0% $2,500.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 Subtotal $2,500 100.0% $2,500.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 Totals $2,500 100.0% $2,500 $0 $2,500 $0 Reimbursables (attached) $74.24 Total Due This Invoice: $2,574.24 ClassHication Time Rate Charges Warren Williams 10 $250.00 $2,500.00 Sincerely, ee B- veneer rE Warren Williams, Jr, PE, PLS Vice President Date Received: i Client Case No: Atty Approval: Date Approved: Do Not Pay:[ 1 | | | =. Engineering, Inc. 160 § Old Springs Rd. Suite 210 Anaheim Hills CA 92808 Tel: 714-685-6860 MUR MARK ARMSTRONG 19-11 XPERT WITNESS SUBTOTAL: LABOR 5i4/2019 10 250.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 MILEAGE 128 058! 74.24 SUBTOTAL: REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES 74.24 Total $2,574.24 Credit/Pymt $0.00 Total Due This Inv $2,574.24 Job#/ Project Description ~~ Notes © Miles Charges Desc / Date L 19-114 MURTAUGH - JAISINGHANI | 4/5/2019 : | WILLIAMS, WARREN UNITS = 128.00 mi COMMENT = Site © 128 $74.24 { 19-114 Total 128 sad { PON VD Engineering, Inc. - 1605. Old Springs Road, Ste. 210 Anaheim Hills, (3 stalin 1 Ql nig 92808 Phone: 714-685 6860 Fax: 714-085-6801 Mark Armstrong August 3, 2019 Murtaugh Treglia Stern & Deily LLP Email: marmstrong@murtaughlaw.com Invoice # 19-114-3 July 1-31, 2019 Jaisinghani / Expert Witness Dear Mark : Outlined below is a summary of tasks and the amount due this invoice. ‘| Task Task Description Contract Percent Charges to Date Previously Current Budget Remaining No. Amount Complete invoiced Invoice CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICEES Expert Witness Base Fee $2,500 100.0% $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 Subtotal $2,500 100.0% $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 TIME AND MATERIALS SERVICES May 2019 $1,000 100.0% $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 July 2019 $500 100.0% $500.00 $0.00 $500.00 $0.00 Subtotal $1,500 100.0% $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $0.00 Totals $4,000 100.0% $4,000 $3,500 $500 $0 Reimbursables (attached) $0.00 Total Due This Invoice: $500.00 Warren Williams Sincerely, Won WATTS Warren Williams, Jr., PE, PLS Vice President areas $800.00 Do Not Pay:[ |] Date Received: I () > Client Case No: Atty Approvals Engineering, Inc. 8/3/2018 16-114-3 Net 30 “ 50 8 Old Springs Rd. Suite 210 Anaheim Hills CA 82808 fw 19-114 EXPERT WITN... FIXED FEE LABOR 500.00 $00.00 SUBTOTAL: LABOR 500.00 Total $800.00 Cradit/Pymt $0.00 Total Due This Inv $560.00 mesa cv mn. r t e oes r et e e 160 South Old Springs Road, Ste. 210 Anaheim Hills, California 92808 Engineering, Inc. Phone: 714-685-6860 | . Civil Engineering/Land Surveying/Land Planning | Fax: 714-685-6801 Mark Armstrong February 8, 2020 Murtaugh Treglia Stern & Deily LLP - Email: marmstrong@murtaughlaw.com; trangel@murtaughiaw.com Invoice # 19-114-4 January 1-31, 2020 Jaisinghani / Expert Witness Dear Mark : Outlined below is a summary of tasks and the amount due this invoice. Task Task Description Contract Percent Charges to Date Previously Current Budget Remaining No. Amount Complete Invoiced Invoice CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICEES Expert Witness Base Fee $2,500 100.0% $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 Subtotal $2,500 100.0% $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 TIME AND MATERIALS SERVICES May 2019 $1,000 100.0% $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 July 2019 $500 100.0% $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 Jan 2020 ) $750 100.0% $750.00 $0.00 $750.00 $0.00 Subtotal $2,250 100.0% $2,250.00 $1,500.00 $750.00 $0.00 Totals $4,750) 100.0% $4,750 $4,000 $750 $0 Reimbursables (attached) $0.00 Total Due This Invoice: $750.00 Time Rate Charges Warren Williams 3 $280.00 $750.00 Li 3 Ny Williams, Jr. PE, BLS Vice President J nt Case Nos Lity Approvals ate Approved: OE t= Fore 0 Not Pay:[ | Engineering, Inc. CRD aGny 2/8/2020 i 19-114-4 160 5 Old Spr s Rd Suite 210, Anaheim Hills CA 92808 1 714-685-6860 | www. drc-eng.com = AND MAT 3 250.001 0 SUBTOTAL: LABOR i : 5 : 3 i 4 | : i i i } i ; | Total | $760.00 Credit/Pymit $0.00 $750.00 Total Due This Inv 160 South Old Springs Road, Ste. 210 Anaheim Hills, California 92808 Engineering, Inc. Phone: 714-685-6860 Civil Engineering/Land 5 wrveyi ngit and Plannin q Fax: 714-685-6801 “Mark Armstrong Murtaugh Treglia Stern & Deily LLP : February 26, 2020 Email: marmstrong@murtaughlaw.com; trangel@murtaughlaw.com Invoice # 19-114-5 February 1-29, 2020 Jaisinghani / Expert Witness Dear Mark : Outlined below is a summary of tasks and the amount due this invoice. Task Task Description Contract Percent Charges to Date Previously Current Budget Remaining No. Amount Complete Invoiced Invoice CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICEES Expert Witness Base Fee $2,500 100.0% $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 Subtotal $2,500 100.0% $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 TIME AND MATERIALS SERVICES May 2019 $1,000 100.0% $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 July 2019 $500 100.0% $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 Jan 2020 $750 100.0% $750.00 $750.00 $0.00 $0.00 Feb 2020 } $5,125 100.0% $5,125.00 $0.00 | $5,125.00 $0.00 Subtotal $7,375 100.0% $7,375.00 $2,250.00 | $5,125.00 $0.00 Totals $9,875 100.0% $9,875 $4,750 $5,125 $0 Reimbursables (attached) $63.80 Total Due This Invoice: $5,188.80 Time Rate Charges Warren Williams 20.5 $250.00 $5,125.00 Sincerely, ° a Warren Williams, Jr PE #°LS Vice President to Received: =f Case No: - Avproval: § 4A. Approved: Qe sot Paye] | Engineering, Inc. DYyRLE Cwnad company | 19-1145 | | 2/26/2020 160 § Ol Springs Ra Suite 210, Anaheim Hills CA 92808 S110. COM oo bo 4- 685-6860 | www. dre £88 Bs i i i i i § i : 3 > § § { { ) : : : Total $6,188.80 Credit/Pymi $0.00 | Total Due This Inv $5,188.80 AN Ln W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP PROOF OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, declare as follows: I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within action. I am an employee of or agent for MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP, whose business address is 2603 Main Street, Penthouse, Irvine, California 92614-6232. On July 24, 2020, I served the foregoing document(s): DEFENDANT ADVANCED ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TAX AEC’S COSTS On the following parties in this action addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) 1 served by placing a true copy of each document in a sealed envelope with delivery fees provided for and deposited in a box regularly maintained by Overnight Service. I am readily familiar with this firm's practice for collection and processing of documents for overnight delivery and know that in the ordinary course of Murtaugh Treglia Stern & Deily LLP’s business practice the document(s) described above will be deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by Federal Express or Overnight Express or delivered to a courier or driver authorized by Federal Express or Overnight Express to receive documents on the same date it is placed at Murtaugh Treglia Stern & Deily LLP for collection. Executed on July 24, 2020, at Irvine, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. & nil Ou = CYNTHIA DUFFY 1734056 -1- PROOF OF SERVICE MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP AN Ln W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST JAISINGHANI V. TER-OGANESIAN, et al. CASE NO.: SC123736 Our File No.: 174-16998 David T. Azrin, Esq. Kyle G. Kunst Gallet Dreyer & Berkey LLP 845 Third Avenue, 5 Floor New York, NY 10022 George M. Halami, Esq. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 George E. Akwo, Esq. GA Law Group 8500 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 916 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Sona Abkarian, Esq. Law Office of Sona Abkarian 18763 Vintage Street Northridge, CA 91324 Michael E. Barmasse, Esq. 30423 Canwood St., Suite 236 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Ramond Takhsh, Esq. CTK LAW GROUP 15615 Alton Parkway, Suite 450 Irvine, CA 92618 1734056 Attorneys for PLAINTIFF, GUL JAISINGHANI (212) 935-3131 Fax: (212) 935-4514 dta@gdblaw.com kgk @gdblaw.com Attorneys for PLAINTIFF, GUL JAISINGHANI (310) 553-5562 Fax: (310) 284-3243 Halimilaw @ gmail.com Attorneys for ARMEN TER-OGANESIAN, ART TECH, YOUSSEFIAN-TER- OGANESIAN, ARCHITECTURE- PLANNING-URBAN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ANIL SHARMA, MALIBU KNOLL, LLC AND MALIBU KNOLL GREEN DEVELOPMENT, LLC (800) 606-1508 Fax: (888) 505-1619 George @galawgroup.org Attorneys for CROSS-DEFENDANT RAFFI ABKARIAN AN INDIVIDUAL, DBA RAFFI ABKARIAN & ASSOCIATES (818) 280-0633 sonadabkarian @ gmail.com sonaabkarian @ yahoo.com Attorneys for BRIAN A. ROBINSON (818) 991-75141 mbarmasse @ gmail.com Attorney for J. Karam & Associates, Inc. T: (949) 534-2379 / F: (949) 329-2002 ramond.takhsh @ctklawgroup.com PROOF OF SERVICE MURTAUGH TREGLIA STERN & DEILY LLP AN Ln W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jonathan Segherian 109 E. Harvard Street, Ste. 306 Glendale, CA 91205 Dave L. Neville, Esq. Law Offices of Dave L. Neville 111 W Topa Topa St Ojai, CA 93023 1734056 In Pro Per jonathan @sagerassociates.com Attorneys for SURFACES, USA in pro per P: (805) 640-6468 / F: (805) 669-4462 dave @dlnevillelaw.com PROOF OF SERVICE