Ama Investors, LLC vs. Pro Motorcars Inc

Accordingly, the demurrer to the third cause of action is also SUSTAINED.

Re Leave to Amend: On demurrer, a court determines whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. If the court sustains the demurrer, it must decide whether to grant leave to amend. Leave to amend should be granted if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. Plaintiff (or here, Cross-Complainant) has the burden of proving that there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

Given that Cross-Complainants have had multiple opportunities to state a viable claim, and Cross- Complainants have not met their burden of establishing that there is a reasonable possibility that the defects in the SACC can be cured by amendment, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party to give notice.

13 Ama Investors, LLC Ds’ Motion to Tax Costs vs. Pro Motorcars P’s Motion to Strike or Tax Costs Inc As explained below:

The court GRANTS Plaintiff AMA INVESTORS, LLC’s motion to tax costs in its entirety.

The court DENIES Defendants PRO MOTORCARS, INC.’s and Mehrdad Jandarian’s motion to tax costs.

Legal Standard

Plaintiff and Defendants filed competing motions to tax/strike costs. Each claim that it is the prevailing party, that the opposing party is not the prevailing party, and that certain costs items in the memorandum of costs are not recoverable.

In general, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs for suit in any action or proceeding. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 1032(b); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606; Scott Co. Of Calif. v. Blount, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1103, 1108.) The term “prevailing party” is defined by statute to include: The party with a net monetary recovery; a defendant who is dismissed from the action; a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant recovers anything; and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032(a)(4).)

Allowable costs under section 1033.5 must be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation, and must be reasonable in amount. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5.) An item not specifically allowable under section 1033.5(a) nor prohibited under subdivision (b) may nevertheless be recoverable in the discretion of the court if they meet the above requirements (i.e., reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount). (Ladas v. California State Automotive Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-774.)

If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. (Id. at 773-774.) On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. (Id.)

As the court previously found, Plaintiff AMA Investors, LLC is the prevailing party in this action. Defendants Pro Motorcars, Inc. and Mehrdad Jandarian are therefore not entitled to costs. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to strike/tax the entirety of Defendants’ memorandum of costs is GRANTED.

Given this finding, the court will proceed with addressing the items listed in Defendants’ motion to tax costs in the order that Defendants addressed them in their motion.

Electronic Fees

Defendants argue that Plaintiff should not be able to recover fees related to vendor charges, technology fees, and/or fees that are not specifically mandated by the court.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(13) provides for the recovery of “[f]ees 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.”

Here, the court finds that Plaintiff’s claim of $582.42 for electronic filing fees to all be reasonably necessary fees related to the electronic filing or service of documents through an electronic filing service provider. The court will not tax or strike any of these costs.

Other Costs

Defendants argue that $144.56 in costs related to two courtesy copies should be taxed/costs because they were not required by the court, are related to delivery and/or vendor charges.

The court finds that Plaintiff may recover these costs under the section that allows for “items not mentioned in this section and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court's discretion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(c)(4).) Plaintiff explains that these costs were incurred to comply with the court’s local rules related to delivery of a trial binder. As such, the court finds that these costs are reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. The court will not tax/strike these costs.

Service of Process

Defendants argue that $247.08 in fees related to service of process was improper because it shows multiple attempts to serve.

The court finds that these are recoverable costs and necessary to the conduct of litigation. Where service at one location failed, it is reasonable to attempt to make additional service attempts.

The court will not strike/tax these costs.

Models, Enlargements, and Photocopies of Exhibits

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s request for $181.79 for exhibit photocopies should be taxed/stricken because it includes special paper, drilling, setup, and shipping.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(13) provides for the recovery of “models, the enlargements of exhibits and photocopies of exhibits, and the electronic presentation of exhibits, including costs of rental equipment and electronic formatting, may be allowed if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact.”

The court finds that Plaintiff has established that $181.79 was a reasonable amount of costs that Plaintiff actually incurred in photocopies of trial exhibit binders, which were necessary for litigation. The court will not tax/strike these costs.

Filing and Motion Fees

Lastly, Defendants argue that $795 in filing and motion fees are excessive because the charges include not only court fees but also vendor charge (e.g., eFiling charge or convenience fees).

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(13) provides for the recovery of “[f]ees 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.”

The court finds that Plaintiff has substantiated $795 of electronic filing and motion fees that Plaintiff actually incurred by vendors.

The court will not strike/tax these costs.

In sum, the court DENIES Defendants’ motion in its entirety. Plaintiff AMA Investors, LLC is awarded costs in the total amount of $1,950.85.

Plaintiff to give notice.

14 Krishnamoorthy vs. Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication The Irvine Company, LLC The hearing on this motion was continued from 8/14/26, to permit the parties to lodge surveillance footage referenced in their respective filings. (See 8/14/26 Minute Order.) The parties thereafter filed lodged copies of the surveillance footage (See ROAs 202 and 206), which this court has considered.

The court DENIES Defendants THE IRVINE COMPANY LLC, IRVINE PARK WEST APARTMENTS LLC, and IRVINE MANAGEMENT COMPANY’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion for summary judgment, and their alternative motion for summary adjudication directed at the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs RAMACHANDRAN KRISHNAMOORTHY and MAHESWARI RAMACHANDRAN.

The Complaint asserts two causes of action arising against Defendants: (1) negligence/wrongful death and (2) premises liability/wrongful death.

Evidentiary Objections

The court OVERRULES Defendants’ Objection Nos. 1–7 to the Declaration of Trevor A. Sherwood II. As to Objection No. 1, although the copy initially submitted with Plaintiffs’ opposition did not bear a signature, Plaintiffs subsequently filed an executed declaration, curing the procedural defect. (Peabody Jr. Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Exh. 8 [ROA 189]. See Walton v. Victor Valley Community College Dist. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 1164, 1170– 1171 [accepting untimely corrected declaration, noting “A court should be cautious about granting summary judgment ‘based on a curable procedural default, which deprives the opposing party of a decision on the merits’ [citation] In the event of such defect, the ‘proper response’ is to grant an opportunity to cure so the motion can be resolve don the merits. [Citation].”].)

The court OVERRULES Defendants’ Objection Nos. 8–12 to the Declaration of Boyce Oandasan.

34