Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
DEFENDANTS’ COST MEMORANDUM IMPROPERLY CLAIMS $25,773.25 IN COSTS WHICH SHOULD BE TAXED
Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5 provides for the items recoverable as costs. The statute sets forth items specifically recoverable (subdivision (a)) and not recoverable (subdivision (b)), with all remaining items discretionary with the court (subdivision (c)(4)). In all cases, however, allowable costs must be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to the preparation, and reasonable in amount. Id. at § 1033.5 (c)(2) and (c)(3).
As set forth below, Defendants have included unreasonable and unjust costs in this lawsuit which should be denied.
A. FILING AND MOTION FEES
Regarding Item No. 1 in Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs, “Filing and Motion Fees” items a, b, and c wrongfully seeks $129.50 for the filing of 1) Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial; 2) a Motion to Compel a Court Ordered Psych Exam as well as an Ex Parte for the same.
Again, as noted above, Plaintiff won the case however she failed to beat Defendant’s 998 offer. Being the case Defendant is only entitled to post-§998 offer costs. All of these filings took place well before the trial in this matter and therefore any associated costs should be disallowed.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
B. EXPERT FEES
Regarding Item No. 8, Expert Fees, wrongfully seeks $25,643.75. The Court has discretion to order plaintiff to pay reasonable expert fees incurred by defendant in preparing for and during trial (or arbitration) of the case. [CCP §998(c), (e); Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. V City of Los Angeles, supra, 39 C4th at 532-533.
Clearly the Defendant’s have overspent for their experts especially on a case of this magnitude. Defendant’s pre-trial offer was for $30,000.00, this offer amount is what they reasonably valued the case at. Being the case, it is patently unreasonable for Defendant to spend nearly as much as they offered on their defense of the case. These costs seem to be clearly inflated. (See Part 3 of 4.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.