Armas vs. Costco Wholesale Corporation

while a jury trial did not take place, Defendants were still required to pay a nonrefundable fee for their jury demand and therefore a jury fee was a reasonably necessary costs of litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 631, subd. (b).) Section 1033.5(a)(3) expressly allows the prevailing party to recover costs related to “[t]aking video recording, and transcribing necessary depositions, including an original and one copy of those taken by the claimant and one copy of depositions taken by the party against whom costs are allowed, “[f]ees of a certified or registered interpreter for the deposition of a party or witness who does not proficiently speak or understand the English language, and “[t]ravel expenses to attend depositions.” (Code Civ.

Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(3).) Similarly, section 1033.5(a)(14) expressly allows for “fees for the electronic filing or service of documents through an electronic filing service provider if a court requires or orders electronic filing or service of documents.” Given the above, section 1033.5 expressly allows for all costs sought by Defendants. Plaintiff has not carried his burden to establish that the costs were unnecessary or unreasonable. The Motion is DENIED in its entirety. Defendants to give notice

11 Armas vs. Costco Wholesale Corporation

24-01421908 Motions for Sanctions Plaintiff ROSALIDA SANCHEZ ARMAS (hereinafter “Plaintiff’) will and hereby does move the Court for an order: 1. Imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant COSTOCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

(hereinafter “Defendant”) and their attorney of record JULIAN SMITH, ESQ., STEPHEN M. HARPER ESQ. AND McCUNE & HARPER, LLP pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §128.7, §128.5 and California Rule of Court § 2.30 2. Awarding monetary sanctions in the amount of $18,350.00 to compensate for the mediation expenses. Motion is DENIED. Here, the bad acts MP complains about are: • Filing a Case Management Statement representing to the Court that they were interested in mediation and would participate in alternative dispute resolution. • Signing a Joint Stipulation to Continue Trial Misrepresenting to the Court the Basis for the Trial Continuance • Two business days prior to mediation notifying Plaintiff’s counsel that Defendant would not be making an offer at the mediation. (See Declaration of Attorney Anastasia Gkogka.)

However, none of the above alleged conduct supports sanctions pursuant to CCP§§128.5 or 128.7, or CRC 2.30. Plaintiff attempts to paint the picture that Defendant wholly failed to participate in mediation, which has caused a delay in the case. However, Defendant presents evidence that Defendant participated in the mediation. (See Declaration of Sith¶3; Declaration of Harber¶3.) Plaintiff also suggests that Defendant filed a CMC statement indicating a willingness to mediate, and a stipulation to continue trial based on the need to mediate, which were inaccurate.

That is, Plaintiff

suggests that Defendant was not interested in meaningfully mediating at all, but rather, sought mediation to delay the case. However, indicating a willingness to voluntarily mediate on a CMC is not grounds for sanctions. Also, the Stipulations and Orders herein indicate a need for discovery, not a need to complete mediation, as the basis for trial continuance. (See ROAS 34, 44.) Defendant to give notice.

12 Bunker Hill Apartments, LLC vs. GMS Group Inc.

25-01505195 Motion for Order to Deposit Escrow Funds with the Court Plaintiffs Bunker Hill Apartments LLC and Tony Holder (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order directing that escrow funds currently held by La Costa Escrow, Inc. (“La Costa”) in the amount of approximately $958,843.27 be deposited with the Clerk of the Orange County Superior Court. Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion references Code of Civil Procedure sections 386, 386.1, and 386.5, which are interpleader statutes. Section 386.5 provides that a mere stakeholder may apply to the Court for an order discharging him or her from liability upon deposit with the Clerk of the Court the amount in dispute.

These sections do not apply, as Plaintiffs are not the stakeholders here. Plaintiffs also move pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 572. That section provides: When it is admitted by the pleadings, or shown upon the examination of a party to the action, that he or she has in his or her possession, or under his or her control, any money or other thing capable of delivery, which, being the subject of litigation, is held by him or her as trustee for another party, or which belongs or which is due to another party or which should, under the circumstances of the case be held by the court pending