Lan v. Eshak, et al.

law in the December 6, 2023 Submitted Ruling on Plaintiffs' MSJ. (December 6, 2023 Ruling on Submitted Matter-MSJ, "Breach of Duty," pp. 9-10.)

Briefing and Arguments) Judge Eric C. Taylor Torrance/Department A Hearing Date: Thursday, August 20, 2026 Case Name: Lan v. Eshak, et al. Case No.: 19STCV01092 Proceeding: MOTION TO STRIKE COSTS Moving Party: Defendant Wasem Eshak Responding Party: Plaintiff Yongtong Lan Notice: OK Ruling: Defendant Wasem Eshak's Motion to Strike Costs is DENIED. Plaintiff Yongtong Lan is awarded costs pursuant to the Memorandum of Costs in the amount of $296,570.03 as follows:

· Item 1, Filing and Motion Fees - $2,245.00 · Item 2, Jury Fees - $150.00 · Item 4, Deposition Costs - $116,250.76 · Item 5, Service of Process - $23,508.94 · Item 8, Witness Fees - $1,692.23 · Item 11, Court Reporter Fees - $47,151.01 · Item 13, Models, Enlargements, and Photocopies of Exhibits - $45,689.00 · Item 14, Electronic Filing Fees - $11,110.04 · Item 15, Other Fees - $48,773.05

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Yongtong Lan ("Plaintiff") alleged Defendant Wasem Eshak ("Eshak"), Ezzat Petross ("Petross"), Hany Barhoma ("Barhoma"), Ehab Yousseif ("Yousseif"), Mina Israel ("Israel"), and Bishoy Tannious ("Tannious") (collectively, "Defendants"), fraudulently induced him to invest in a specialty/dispensing/compounding pharmacy business located in the Lancaster-Palmdale area (the "Business") in an amount exceeding $1,894,000. Plaintiff further alleges he later discovered the Business, iLabPharma, was insolvent and he had been defrauded of $3,894,000.00.

On January 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint. On January 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative second amended complaint ("SAC") alleging (1) intentional misrepresentation - fraud [count 1], (2) negligent misrepresentation [count 1], (3) intentional misrepresentation and deceit - fraud [count 2], (4) intentional misrepresentation - fraud [count 3], (5) concealment and deceit - fraud [count 4], (6) breach of fiduciary duty, (7) breach of contract [count 1], (8) breach of contract [count 2], (9) violation of penal code Sec. 502 for computer fraud, (10) negligent misrepresentation [count 2], (11) fraud [count 5], (12) conversion, (13) money had and received, (14) unjust enrichment and constructive trust, (15) declaratory relief [count 1], and (16) declaratory relief [count 2].

On June 17, 2026, judgment was entered after bench trial. The Court granted judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants on the first through ninth causes of action and eleventh through fourteenth causes of action. (Judgment, 6/17/26 at pp. 5-6.) The Court further awarded a total of $4,349,286.19 in damages on the fourth through sixth and twelfth through fourteenth causes of action plus ten (10) percent interest per annum. (Id.)

On July 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs requesting a total of $296,570.03 consisting of: (1) $2,245.00 in filing and motion fees; (2) $150.00 in jury fees; (3) $116,250.76 in deposition costs; (4) $23,508.94 in service of process fees; (5) $1,692.23 in witness fees; (6) $47,151.01 in court reporter fees as established by statute; (7) $45,689.00 for models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits; (8) $11,110.04 in electronic filing fees; and (9) $48,773.05 for other fees.

On July 30, 2026, Eshak filed the instant Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs ("MOC"). On August 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition. Any reply would have been due on August 13, 2026. To date, no reply has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD To obtain costs, the prevailing party must file and serve a memorandum of costs, which "must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700, subd. (a).) Copies of bills, invoices, statements, or other documentation need not be attached to the memorandum (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267), but the memorandum must provide enough detail to determine the cost sought is statutorily awardable (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 132.)

If the items on the face of the cost memorandum appear to be proper charges, the verified cost memorandum is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and it is the challenging party who bears the burden to show the costs were not reasonable or necessary. (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) The only identifiable requirement for a memo of costs is that it set forth the costs claimed and be verified. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700, subd. (a)(1).)

The mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a proper objection to an item if the necessity of that item appears doubtful, does not appear to be proper on its face (Nelson, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at 131), or presents a legal question (Fennessy v. Deleuw-Cather Corporation (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1195-1996 (motion to tax questioning entitlement to deposition costs incurred by all six defendants represented by the same counsel was sufficient to place the cost at issue without additional declarations or affidavits).)

However, if section 1033.5 expressly allows the particular item and it appears proper on its face, the burden is on the objecting party to show the costs to be unnecessary or unreasonable. (Nelson, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at 131.) "The court's first determination, therefore, is whether the statute expressly allows the particular item, and whether it appears proper on its face. If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show them to be unnecessary or unreasonable." (Ibid.)

If costs are properly placed at issue, the burden of proof shifts to the party seeking costs to justify them by providing evidence and supporting documentation that the costs were reasonable and necessarily incurred. (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn., supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 774; Jones, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at 1267.)

DISCUSSION For the following reasons set forth below, the Court denies Eshak's motion to strike Plaintiff's memorandum of costs ("MOC"). "A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first. "Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum.

If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. If the cost memorandum was served electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4)." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700, subd. (b)(1).)

Eshak's sole argument in the present motion is that Plaintiff waived his right to costs by failing to timely file his MOC. The Court disagrees.

First, Plaintiff's MOC was due by July 13, 2026, which would have been fifteen (15) days after service of the Notice of Entry of Judgment plus an additional five (5) days per Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013, subdivision (a) since the Notice of Entry of Judgment was served via mail by the clerk on June 22, 2026. (Cert. of Mailing, 6/17/26; Wittner Decl., P.P.2-4, Exs. 1-3; Lewin Decl., P.2, Ex. 2.)

Even calculating the time to file and serve the MOC by the date of service of the written Notice of Entry of Judgment by Plaintiff, the deadline for the MOC to be served and filed would have been July 13, 2026 because Plaintiff's counsel served the written notice via mail and email on June 23, 2026. (Wittner Decl., P.5, Ex. 4.) Plaintiff filed the MOC on July 10, 2026. As such, Plaintiff's MOC was timely filed.

Eshak does not challenge the claimed cost on substantive grounds. Accordingly, Eshak has not met his burden that the claimed costs on Plaintiff's properly verified MOC are not prima facie valid and/or reasonably incurred to litigate this case.

CONCLUSION Defendant's Motion to Strike Costs is DENIED. Plaintiff is awarded costs pursuant to the Memorandum of Costs in the amount of $296,570.03. | Home -->)" -->