Catherine Hauenstein, et al. v. WD Contractor Services, et al.

inspection. The Court reduces the amount allowed to $1,500.00. As to the preparation expenses for expert’s depositions that did not take place, Plaintiff submitted no competent evidence to controvert Defendant’s evidence explaining that, while discussions were taking place back and forth regarding the timing of the depositions, the deposition were never actually noticed to take place. Preparation costs for depositions that were not even firmly noticed and on calendar are not reasonable or necessary. The Court strikes both the $1,240.00 and $2,375.50 costs. Therefore, the memorandum of costs is reduced as follows: $700.00; $83.66; $1,089.36; $1,240.00; $2,375.50, for a total reduction of $5,488.02. Thus, amount of costs in the memorandum of costs is reduced from $19,004.51 to $13,516.49. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling. .

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT? SOUTHWEST DISTRICT Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Monday, May 18, 2026 Department M Calendar No. 19 PROCEEDINGS Catherine Hauenstein, et al. v. WD Contractor Services, et al.

1. Lee Hutton III?s Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice

Lee Hutton III?s Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is granted.

Background

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on July 23, 2025. Plaintiffs allege the following facts. Defendants performed construction work at Plaintiffs’ residence and left unsecured tarps covering construction materials. Plaintiff Catherine Hauerstein tripped and fell on the unsecured plastic tarps. Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40 states, in relevant part:?(d) The application must state: (1) The applicant's residence and office address; (2) The courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) That the applicant is a licensee in good standing in those courts; (4) That the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) The title of each court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or

not it was granted; and (6) The name, address, and telephone number of the active licensee of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record. (e) The State Bar may set an appropriate application fee to be paid by counsel pro hac vice.” The applicant has met all the requirements mandated in Rule 9.40. The application to be admitted as counsel pro hac vice is therefore granted. Lee Hutton III is admitted as counsel pro hac vice in the pending matter. Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling. Home -->)" -->