On December 29, 2017 a
Party Notice
was filed
involving a dispute between
Nunez Jose,
and
Angeles Ipa Inc,
Dignity Health,
Health Net Community Solutions Inc,
Syndermed,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
FILED ia
Superior Court of Californ
Superior Court of Californi: County of Los Angeles
OCT -3 2019
County of Los Angele:
et ecutive Officer/Clerk
‘ y. a2 Lf = Deputy
Department 61 Latina Woods
JOSE NUNEZ, Case No.: BC688713
Plaintiff, Hearing Date: October 3, 2019
Vv RULING RE:
HEALTH NET, INC., et al., LAINTIFF JOSE NUNEZ’S MOTION TO
STRIKE AND/OR TAX COSTS
Defendants.
Plaintiff Jose Nunez’s Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs is GRANTED in part in the amount of
$1,457.92, leaving Health Net with a total cost award of $3,342.67.
I MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS
Health Net seeks $4,800.59 in costs.
“Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of
the cost memorandum. If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as
provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. If the cost memorandum was served
electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section
1010.6(a)(4).” (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700, subd. (b)(1).)
“Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (b) [], guarantees prevailing parties in civil
litigation awards of the costs expended in the litigation: ‘Except as otherwise expressly provided
by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or
proceeding.’” (Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (“Williams”) (2015) 61 Cal.4th
97, 100.).
“Tf the items on a verified cost bill appear proper charges, they are prima facie evidence that the
costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred.” (Rappenecker v. Sea-Land
Service, Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 266.) Although individual cost items are ordinarily
challenged by a motion to tax costs, no cost-item is effectively put in issue by “mere statements”
claiming them to be unreasonable. (/bid.) However, where “it cannot be determined from the
face of the cost bill whether the items are proper, 9 6 ‘the mere filing of a motion to tax costs may
be a ‘proper objection’ to an item.” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131, 132.)
Nunez argues that this court should strike Health Net’s request for costs because it was jointly
represented by the same counsel and Health Net Community Solutions (“HNCS”) and presented
only joint filings with that other entity. (Motion at p. 3.) Health Net responds that its defenses
were not so unified as Nunez claims, given that liability against it could only be imposed by alter
ego, a claim this court rejected in granting Health Net’s motion for summary judgment.
Document Filed Date
October 03, 2019
Case Filing Date
December 29, 2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.