Gutierrez v. Guevara

As an initial matter, the amended costs memorandum filed on May 5, 2026 (ROA 271) is untimely and thus, stricken. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1); Code of Civ. Proc. § 436.) The Court only considers the original costs memorandum filed on February 20, 2026 (ROA 206) in ruling on this motion.

Item No. 4: Costs are expressly allowed for the “[t]aking, video recording, and transcribing necessary depositions . . ..” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, subd. (a)(3).) Defendant clarifies in the reply that she is only challenging the videotaping costs for Dr. Kim ($563.75), Ms. Cruz ($563) and Ms. Manalo ($557.50) and the deposition costs newly submitted with the Opposition for Dr. Kim ($4,256.20 plus $609), Dr. Dennis ($2,095.40), Dr. Nudleman ($1,972.35).

Contrary to Defendant’s contention, the original costs memorandum and supporting declaration includes all 12 itemized costs for transcribing and videotaping depositions, including for Drs. Kim, Dennis and Nudleman. (ROA 260, 262.) Plaintiff contends the original costs memorandum, however, miscategorized the “taking” of depositions for Kim, Pahk, Salhom, Cruz and Shapiro as “ordinary witness fees” in Item No. 8a instead of listing these costs under Item No.

4. The supporting declaration filed with the costs memorandum supports Plaintiff’s contention. Defendant had notice of these charges, and in fact, Defendant challenged these costs in the motion as not being supported by proper documentation. (Motion, p. 11.) With the opposition, Plaintiff submitted invoices for the costs of taking the depositions for these witnesses. (Bazerkanian Decl., Exs. A-2, A-3, A-4, A-6, A-8.) Defendant failed to challenge these costs as unreasonable or unnecessary in the reply.

With regard to the videotaping of the depositions of Dr. Kim, Ms. Cruz and Ms. Manalo, Defendant has shown these costs were not necessary for the conduct of litigation. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2); Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 57; see e.g., Seever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557, 1560 [costs of videotaping depositions awarded where necessary to prepare strategy for cross-examination].)

Thus, the motion is GRANTED for this item in the amount of $1,684.25.

Item No. 8b: Plaintiff withdraws this itemized cost. Thus, the motion is GRANTED for this item in the amount of $14,950.

Item No. 13: Expenses for models, enlargements, photocopies and electronic presentation of exhibits that are “reasonably helpful to the trier of fact” are recoverable costs. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, subd. (a)(13); Christler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 72, 90-91; Ripley v. Pappadopoulos (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1616, 1623.) In general, costs for exhibits not actually used at trial are not recoverable. (Ladas v. California State Auto. Ass’n (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774; Great Western Bank v.

Converse Consultants, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 609, 615.) Plaintiff seeks $5,269.93 in costs, of which Defendant challenges $2,643.75. Defendant has shown, and Plaintiff does not dispute, the exhibit enlargement and photocopies were not used at trial, and the photocopies are not supported by invoices or receipts. The motion is thus GRANTED for this item in the amount of $2,643.75.

Item No. 14: Fees for the electronic filing or service of documents through an electronic filing provider are recoverable if a court requires or orders electronic filing or service of documents. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, subd. (a)(14).) Defendant disputes $116.37 of the $532.12 sought, as not supported by the receipts. However, Defendant did not include the amounts charged for court technology access fee ($2.25) and convenience fees ($0.62) for each e-filing, which costs the Court finds reasonable. The motion is therefore DENIED for this item.

Item No. 15: Plaintiff withdraws this itemized cost. The motion is thus GRANTED for this item in the amount of $3,559.75.

In sum, costs shall be reduced by $22,837.75 and the total amount awarded is $40,852.95.

Defendant shall provide notice of this ruling. 2 Azadzoi vs. Specially appearing defendant Asif Chattha’s (“Defendant” for this Chattha ruling) unopposed Motion to Quash (“Motion”) service of summons is GRANTED.

A defendant may move to quash summons pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code § 418.10(a)(1). “When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process “the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.” ‘ “ (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 403, 413; Dill v. Berquist Constr. Co. (1994) 24 Cal. App. 4th 1426, 1439–40.)

Defendant has challenged the court’s jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process by producing declarations supporting that neither Defendant nor a competent member of his household were personally served the summons and complaint at Defendant’s dwelling house or usual place of abode as stated in the proof of service. Pro per plaintiffs Barnosh Azadzoi and Megan Azadzoi (“Plaintiffs”) did not oppose the Motion and therefore have not met their burden of showing proper service or the existence of the court’s jurisdiction.

The Motion is granted.

Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to September 4, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.

Defendant to give notice. 3 Young v. The motion of defendants Garden Grove HY LLC, Ally Bank, and Garden Grove Great American Insurance Company (collectively, Defendants) to HY LLC compel arbitration of the claims of plaintiff Sammie Young II (Plaintiff) is GRANTED.

On a motion to compel arbitration, the moving party bears the burden of proving the existence of an applicable agreement and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense. (See Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th