Motion_to_tax_costsMotionCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.February 16, 2018Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/14/2019 05:23 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by T. Rhodes,Deputy Clerk 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MARTORELL LAW APC Eduardo Martorell, State Bar No. 240027 EMartorell@Martorell-Law.com Harry Abraham, State Bar No. 290298 HAbraham@Martorell-Law.com Howard Hughes Center 6100 Center Drive, Suite 1130 Los Angeles, California 90045 Telephone: (323) 840-1200 Facsimile: (323) 840-1300 Attorneys for Plaintiff, PETRA JACKSON SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PETRA JACKSON, Plaintiff, VS. PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY; MURZI KAY; NATASHA KOBRINSKY; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: YC072683 Assigned to the Hon. Ramona G. See Department M PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER TAXING DEFENDANTS’ COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [Filed concurrently with Declaration of Eduardo Martorell and Proposed Order] Date: ~~ April 30, 2019 Time: 8:30 am. Dept: M Reservation: 990856075788 Complaint Filed: Trial Date: February 16, 2018 None Set PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER TAXING DEFENDANTS’ COSTS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 30, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. in Department M of the above-entitled Court, located at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, California 90503, Plaintiff Petra Jackson (“Plaintiff”) will and hereby does move the Court for an order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(1) and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, taxing costs sought in this action by striking the following items from the Memorandum of Costs filed by Defendants Pepperdine University, Murzi Kay, and Natasha Kobrinsky (collectively “Defendants”) because they were not reasonably necessary: 1. Item Number 4: Deposition costs in the amount of $2,456. This Motion is based on this notice, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the concurrently filed Declaration of Eduardo Martorell, all pleadings and records on file herein, and such oral argument and other evidence as may be presented at the time of the hearing. Dated: February 14, 2019 MARTORELL LAW APC Eduardo Martorell Harry Abraham Attorneys for Plaintiff Petra Jackson 1 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER TAXING DEFENDANTS’ COSTS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Plaintiff PETRA JACKSON (“Plaintiff”) hereby respectfully submits the following in support of her Motion for an Order Taxing Costs sought by Defendants Pepperdine University, Murzi Kay, and Natasha Kobrinsky (collectively “Defendants”): LI. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff filed suit for Retaliation, Sexual Harassment and Failure to Prevent Harassment. This Court dismissed the action with prejudice and Defendants have now sought to recover $4,255 in costs. Plaintiff moves for an Order taxing deposition costs in the amount of $2,456. Defendants deposed Plaintiff before answering the Complaint and now seek to reimburse such costs. Paradoxically, they argued it would be premature to have Defendant Murzi Kay deposed when Plaintiff’s counsel sought his deposition. It is simply unfair and unjust for Defendants on the one hand to seek to recover $2,456 for taking the Plaintiff’s deposition, and at the same time seek to recover the filing fee for a Motion for a Protective Order to prevent the deposition of their own client just a few months later by arguing it to be “premature.” Plaintiff is an individual of limited means. Under these circumstances, the costs should be scrutinized very carefully. This Court should issue an Order taxing costs which were not reasonably necessary. II. THIS COURT SHOULD ISSUE AN ORDER TAXING COSTS All costs awarded must be reasonable in amount and “reasonably necessary to conduct the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c)(2), (3). Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(c)(2) authorizes a trial court “to disallow recovery of costs, including filing fees, when it determines the costs were incurred unnecessarily.” Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 245. Once a party moving to strike or tax costs properly objects to the items appearing in a cost bill, the burden of proof is on the party claiming the cost to show that it was reasonable. Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774. 1 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER TAXING DEFENDANTS’ COSTS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Here, it was not reasonably necessary for Defendants to incur $2,456 in costs for taking Plaintiff’s deposition and having it videotaped. The Complaint was filed on February 16, 2018.! Defendants deposed Plaintiff before the Court even ruled on their first demurrer, on April 25, 2018.2 Paradoxically, just a few months later, they were unwilling to produce Defendant Murzi Kay for deposition, writing: Regarding (Defendant) Murzi Kay’s deposition in the Jackson v. Pepperdine matter, after careful consideration, we have determined that it is inappropriate to make Mr. Kay available for deposition given that there is no operative Complaint. [W]e believe that commencing discovery under the circumstances presented is inappropriate and would constitute an unnecessary and unfair waste of attorneys’ fees and costs for our clients.? Defendants also argued within their Motion for Protective Order: The fact is, no discovery is necessary at this point, certainly not as a prerequisite for Plaintiff to state a valid claim. No claims are yet at issue. No trial date has been set. Two demurrers have already been sustained entirely, and a third demurrer is now pending. Nevertheless, Plaintiff proceeded to unilaterally notice the deposition of Defendant Murzi Kay (‘Kay’) for October 16, 2018. Without knowing what, if any, claims will survive the pending demurrer, allowing Kay’s deposition to proceed before the hearing on the demurrer will very likely unleash and overly-broad examination. Taking Kay’s deposition now would be a massively wasteful effort for Defendants and all counsel’s time and resources, as there is no assurance that the SAC will ever survive demurrer. * Plaintiff objects to the costs incurred for taking Plaintiff’s deposition and having it videotaped because they were not reasonably necessary and were not reasonable in amount. See Bender v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 217 Cal. App.4th 968, 989 [recognizing that whether an item listed on the memorandum was reasonably necessary is a question of fact to be decided by the trial court, whose decision is reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion]. Defendants should be ! Martorell Decl. 9 2, Exhibit A. 2 Martorell Decl. § 3, Exhibit B. 3 Martorell Decl. 4 4, Exhibit C. 4 Martorell Decl. § 5, Exhibit D [emphasis added] 2 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER TAXING DEFENDANTS’ COSTS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 estopped from arguing such costs were reasonably necessary, given that such an argument is in direct contradiction to the position they subsequently argued. 111. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court strike the following from the Memorandum of Costs: Item Number 4, Deposition Costs in the amount of $2,456. Dated: February 14, 2019 MARTORELL LAW APC Eduardo Martorell Harry Abraham Attorneys for Plaintiff Petra Jackson 3 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER TAXING DEFENDANTS’ COSTS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 6100 Center Drive, Suite 1130, Los Angeles, California 90045. On February 14, 2019, I served the within document(s) described as: PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER TAXING DEFENDANTS’ COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF EDUARDO MARTORELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TAXING DEFENDANTS’ COSTS; [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TAXING DEFENDANTS’ COSTS. on the interested parties in this action as stated on the attached mailing list. (BY MAIL) By placing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth on the attached mailing list. I placed each such envelope for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. Iam readily familiar with this Firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. (BY EXPRESS MAIL) By placing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth on the attached mailing list. I placed each such envelope for collection and overnight mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this Firm's practice for collection and processing of Express Mail to be sent overnight by the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, the Express Mail would be deposited on that same day in the ordinary course of business, with Express Mail postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in a post office, mailbox, sub-post office, substation, mail chute, or other like facility regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service for receipt of Express Mail. (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by Federal Express, an express service carrier, or delivered to a courier or driver authorized by said express service carrier to receive documents, a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, addressed as set forth on the attached mailing list, with fees for overnight delivery paid or provided for. (BY FAX) By transmitting a true copy of the foregoing document(s) via facsimile transmission from this Firm's sending facsimile machine, whose telephone number is (323) 840-1300, to each interested party at the facsimile machine telephone number(s) set forth on the attached mailing list. Said transmission(s) were completed on the aforesaid date at the time stated on the transmission record issued by this Firm's sending facsimile machine. Each such transmission was reported as complete and without error and a transmission report was properly issued by this Firm's sending facsimile machine for each interested party served. A true copy of each transmission report is attached to the office copy of this proof of service and will be provided upon request. 4 PROOF OF SERVICE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) I caused such document(s) to be Served to all Party/Parties through electronic means at the electronic addresses as set forth on the attached service list. Upon completion of transmission of said document(s), I did not receive an “undeliverable” receipt. [[] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I personally served all parties on the attached service list. Executed on February 14, 2019, at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Annie Pulido | (Signature) PROOF OF SERVICE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jackson, et al v. Pepperdine University, et al. Case No. YC072683 CLIENT: Petra Jackson FILE NO.: 1061.001 SERVICE LIST David R. Sugden Marlynn Howe CALL & JENSEN 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 717-3000 Fax: (949) 717-3100 Email: dsugden@calljensen.com mhowe@calljensen.com Attorneys for Defendants, Pepperdine University, Natasha Kobrinksy, And Murzi Kay PROOF OF SERVICE Journal Technologies Court Portal Make a Reservation PETRA JACKSON VS PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, ET AL Case Number: YC072683 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Other Employment Complaint Case Date Filed: 2018-02-16 Location: Torrance Courthouse - Department M Reservation Case Name: PETRA JACKSON VS PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, ET AL Type: Motion to Tax Costs Filing Party: Petra Jackson (Plaintiff) Date/Time: 04/30/2019 8:30 AM Reservation ID: 990856075788 Fees Description Motion to Tax Costs Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) TOTAL Payment Amount: $61.65 Account Number: XXXX4340 ®=4 Print Receipt = Reserve Another Hearing Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved. Case Number: YC072683 Status: RESERVED Location: Torrance Courthouse - Department M Number of Motions: 1 Confirmation Code: CR-GQYRRX4N4JTHRZREE Fee Qty 60.00 1 1.65 1 Type: Visa Authorization: 03593D Amount 60.00 1.65 $61.65
