Motion to Tax Costs
codefendants establishing, after a contested hearing, the nonexistence of the controlling fact; in such case the defaulting defendant is entitled to have judgment in his favor along with the successful contesting defendant.”].)
In the court’s 5/5/26 minute order, the court stated it would take Plaintiff’s DAVID ELIAS’s request for a default judgment under submission once a ruling is made on Defendant JAMES VOLPE’s motion to set aside default. (See 5/5/26 Minute Order.) As such, Plaintiff’s request for a default judgment is now deemed under submission.
Plaintiff to give notice.
7 Wang vs. Bui Motion to Tax Costs
The matter was continued from 7/10/26 to give Defendants an opportunity to file a supplemental declaration and allowing Plaintiffs to respond as well.
The court has considered the Sur-Reply filed by Defendants on 7/16/26 (ROA 563) and Plaintiff’s Sur Sur-Reply filed on 7/21/26 (ROA 567).
The court DENIES, in its entirety, Plaintiffs JIN WANG, M.D. and CHIRAG VAIDYA, M.D.’s motion to tax costs.
Re Deposition Costs
First, Plaintiffs argues the court should tax the charge of $1,351.25 for a claimed deposition no-show on 4/14/22.
The last page of Defendants’ Exhibit List, which was belatedly filed on 7/1/26, shows a First Legal Invoice for charges related to a certificate of non-appearance, with the charges totaling $1,351.25. In support of Plaintiffs’ Reply, counsel for Plaintiffs declares, “According to my email records, I noted that, on April 14, 2022, at 9:29 am, I sent an email to Mr. Bui to the effect that no link had been received from his office in order to access the remote deposition that had been set for April 14, 2022. I also noted that Dr. Vaidya had cleared his calendar for the deposition.
I also observed that the deposition notice required at least 5 days to provide the link, and because the link was not actually sent, Dr. Vaidya was returning to his clinic.” (Boros Decl., ¶ 2). “The ‘no-show’ of April 14, 2022 was not due to any act, oversight, or omission on my part.” (Boros Decl., ¶ 4.)
In support of Defendants’ Sur-Reply, Mr. Bui declares that on 4/4/22, at 5:50 p.m., Mr. Boros was emailed the remote Zoom link for the deposition at dboros@gmail.com. (Bui Decl., 5:4-6.)
Mr. Boros points out in Plaintiffs’ response to the Sur-Reply that his email address is dboros87@gmail.com, which is, in fact, the email address on Defendants’ proof of service to Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the link appears to have been sent to the wrong email prior to the deposition.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendants however also show that Plaintiffs were aware of the deposition date, and that on 4/8/22, six days prior to the deposition, Mr. Boros served Defendants’ counsel’s office with an "Objection to Deposition Notice of Chirag Vaidya, M.D.", raising specific objections to the phrasing of the requests for documents contained within the notice. (f Bui Decl., 5:7-9.)
Mr. Bui declares that on 4/14/22, the morning of the 10:00 am deposition, he emailed Mr. Boros at 9:05 a.m. to inquire why no documents had been uploaded. At 9:29 a.m., Mr. Boros replied to his inquiry stating he had not received the link, that it was "Too late to supply it now," and that his client was returning to his clinic. (Bui Decl., 7:12-15). At 9:31 a.m., Mr. Bui’s office the original First Legal email containing the Zoom link to Mr. Boros. (Decl. of Bui, 5:16-17). Defendants also attach this email exchange in support of their Sur-Reply.
Because Mr. Boros was aware of the 4/14/22 deposition date and had the link to the deposition prior to the deposition starting, the court will allow these costs.
Filing Fees for Separate Case
Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants included $1,576.79 worth of charges for filings in the San Bernadino County Superior Court.
In their Sur-Reply, Defendants clarified that the $1,656.55 requested on Line 14 of the Memorandum of Costs represents only the electronic filing fees incurred in the Orange County action. Defendants set forth that the specific invoices related to this Orange County matter are located on pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 of Exhibit B. The invoices were provided to defense counsel in a single PDF and included the San Bernadino case which have overlapping parties. Accordingly, the court will allow these filing costs.
In sum, the motion is DENIED in its entirety.
Defendants to give notice.
8 BRE-FMCA, LLC vs. Motions to Compel Further Responses re Tealeaf 1. Requests for Admissions (RFAs) Corporation 2. Special Interrogatories 3. Form Interrogatories 4. Production of Documents (RFPs)
The court DENIES Plaintiff BRE-FMCA, LLC’s motions to compel further responses from Defendant STEVEN MA to (1) RFAs (Set One), (2) Special Interrogatories (Set One), (3) Form Interrogatories (Set One), and (4) RFPs (Set One).
As to the RFAs (Set One), Plaintiff seeks further responses to Nos. 10, 14, 16, and 20 on the grounds that the current responses are “impermissibly vague, fail to clearly delineate what is admitted from what is denied, and are non-responsive and evasive to the substance of the requests.” (Not. Of Mot. [ROA 93], at p. 2, lines 10-14.)
As to the Special Interrogatories (Set One), Plaintiff seeks further responses to Nos. 1-21, 24-26 and 28-31 on the grounds that the current responses are “evasive and
6