Gu vs. Family Orthodontics & Oral Surgery

Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling. 8 Gu vs. Defendants Dean Azzeh, DDS and Dean Azzeh D.D.S., Inc. dba Family Orthodontics & Family Oral Surgery’s demurer and motion to strike are CONTINUED to December 17, 2026 at Orthodonti 01:30 PM, in this department. cs & Oral Surgery Defendants’ electronic service of the moving papers to Plaintiff, who is in pro per, is defective. Cal. R. Ct., rule 2.251, subd. (c) provides:

(c) Electronic service required by local rule or court order

...

(2) A court may require other persons to serve documents electronically in specified civil actions by local rule, as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and the rules in this chapter.

(3) Except when personal service is otherwise required by statute or rule, a party or other person that is required to file documents electronically in an action must also serve documents and accept service of documents electronically from all other parties or persons, unless:

(A) The court orders otherwise, or

(B) The action includes parties or persons that are not required to file or serve documents electronically, including self-represented parties or other self-represented persons; those parties or other persons are to be served by non-electronic methods unless they affirmatively consent to electronic service.

Cal. R. Ct., Rule 2.251, subd. (b)(1)(B) also provides: “(1) A party or other person indicates that the party or other person agrees to accept electronic service by:... A party or other person may manifest affirmative consent by serving notice of consent to all parties and other persons and either: (i) Agreeing to the terms of service with an electronic filing service provider, which clearly states that agreement constitutes consent to receive electronic service; or (ii) Filing Consent to Electronic Service and Notice of Electronic Service Address (form EFS-005-CV).” (See also Code Civ. Proc. §1010.6, subd. (c)).

There is no indication that Plaintiff consented to electronic service, and Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition on the merits, thereby waiving this service defect.

Furthermore, the meet and confer declaration fails to comply with Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.41, subd. (a) and 435.5, subd. (a). Counsel for Defendants declares that he sent Plaintiff a meet and confer correspondence on 3/24/26, and that Plaintiff did not respond. (Decl. of Aloia, ¶ ¶ 4, 5).

However, there is no meet and confer attempt via telephone, videoconference, or in person, as required by Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a) and Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5(a).

Accordingly, the court continues the demurrer and motion to strike so that Defendants may properly serve Plaintiff with the moving papers, and that Defendants may attempt to meet and confer in compliance with Sections 430.41(a) and 435.5(a).

Defendants shall file their updated proof of service no later than 5 calendar days before the continued hearing date.

Defendants shall give notice. 9 Kayar vs. Defendant HJC Corporation moves to tax costs on appeal claimed by Plaintiff Melih Kayar. HJC Corp. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall recover $5,924.42 in appellate costs.

As an initial matter, the court finds Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Appellate Costs and Defendant HJC Corporation’s Motion to Tax Appellate Costs to be timely filed and served pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1700 and 8.278. (ROA # 262, 276, 278.)

Standard on Motions to Tax or Strike Costs

A prevailing party is usually entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1032(b).) The items recoverable as costs on appeal are prescribed exclusively by California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(d)(1). No other costs are recoverable. (Stratton v. Beck (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 901, 910.)

If the items on a verified memorandum of costs appear to be proper charges, the memorandum is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and the burden is on the party contesting them to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. (Foothill-De Anza Comm. College Dist. v. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 29; Wagner Farms, Inc. v. Modesto Irrigation Dist. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 765, 773-774.) The party challenging costs does not meet this burden by arguing that the costs were not necessary or reasonable but must present evidence and prove that the costs are not recoverable. (Seever v.

Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557; see also Wagner Farms, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th at pp.777-778.) If the claimed items are not expressly allowed by statute and are objected to by a motion to strike or tax costs, the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs to show that the charges were reasonable and necessary. (Foothill- De Anza Comm. College Dist., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 29.) Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation is a question of fact for the court to determine. (Id. at pp. 29-30.)

Challenged Appellate Costs

Item 3. Preparation of reporter’s transcript.

Plaintiff seeks costs in the amount of $6,579.50 for preparation of the reporter’s transcript.

Defendants contend the only expense recoverable under Rule 8.278(d) is the $130 paid to this Court on 03/15/24. In response, Plaintiff contends the costs include the transcripts for the 01/11/24 hearing on the motion to quash as well the “PMQ deposition transcripts of

30