arrow left
arrow right
  • JOSE NUNEZ VS HEALTH NET INC ET AL Insurance Coverage (not complex) (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • JOSE NUNEZ VS HEALTH NET INC ET AL Insurance Coverage (not complex) (General Jurisdiction) document preview
						
                                

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.