Joshua Rosenbaum v. General Motors, LLC

omitted].)

First, the court denies Defendants' request to strike the memorandum in its entirety. The memorandum is timely, because the time to serve and file a memorandum of costs runs from the date of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, not verbal notice. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700, subd. (a)(1).) Further, the absence of supporting documentation does not bear upon the verification of the memorandum by counsel. (Ibid.)

Second, the court grants the motion to tax costs as to Item 8, totaling $2,908.40, in its entirety, because this item pertains on its face to expert fees not ordered by the court or authorized by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1033.5, subd. (b)(1).)

Third, the court denies the motion as to the remainder of the costs because Defendants have not carried their burden to present evidence rebutting the prima facie showing in the memorandum of costs that the remainder of the costs are proper. (Adams, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at 1486.)

ORDER

The court grants in part defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and LAD-V, LLC's motion to strike plaintiffs Hovhannes Vardanyan and Ohan Melkonyan's memorandum of costs as follows: The court orders that the following costs are taxed from plaintiffs Hovhannes Vardanyan and Ohan Melkonyan's memorandum of costs: $2,908.40 in expert fees (Item 8.) The court orders that plaintiffs Hovhannes Vardanyan and Ohan Melkonyan shall recover $840.76 in costs from defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and LAD-V, LLC. The court orders defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and LAD-V, LLC to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 2, 2026 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court

Court of California County of Los Angeles - Central District Department 513 Joshua Rosenbaum; Plaintiff, vs. General Motors, LLC

; Defendant. | Case No.: |

| | | Hearing Date: | September 2, 2026 | | | Time: | 10:00 a.m. | | | [Tentative] Order RE: Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production | MOVING PARTY: Defendant General Motors, LLC RESPONDING PARTY: No response Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion. No opposition was filed.

DISCUSSION

Defendant General Motors, LLC ("Defendant") moves the court for an order compelling plaintiff Joshua Rosenbaum ("Plaintiff") to serve responses to Defendant's Requests for Production, Set One. The court grants Defendant's motion because (1) Defendant has shown that Plaintiff did not serve timely responses to their Requests for Production, and (2) Plaintiff did not submit opposition papers or other evidence with the court establishing that responses have since been served on Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.300, subd. (b); Roybal Decl. Ex. A [proof of email

service of Plaintiff's Requests for Production on counsel for Plaintiff] and P.P. 3-5.)

ORDER

The court GRANTS defendant General Motors, LLC's motion to compel responses to requests for production. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, the court orders plaintiff Joshua Rosenbaum (1) to serve on defendant General Motors, LLC written responses, without objections and which comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210-2031.250, to defendant General Motors, LLC's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and (2) to produce to defendant General Motors, LLC all documents and things in plaintiff Joshua Rosenbaum's possession, custody, or control which are responsive to those requests, within 20 days of the date of service of this order.

The court orders defendant General Motors, LLC to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 2, 2026 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court Case Number: 25STCV10049 Hearing Date: September 2, 2026 Dept: 513 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles - Central District Department 513 Francisco Estrada; Plaintiff, vs. Ford MOtor Company; Defendant. | Case No.: | 25STCV10049 | | | Hearing Date: |