MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Local Rule 3118, this court requires that “parties represented by counsel must file documents electronically” in all limited and unlimited civil actions. Thus, Plaintiffs’ electronic filing fees are recoverable.
However, the invoices provided by Plaintiffs to support the recovery of these fees show that $180 of these fees were for filing fees, already recovered elsewhere. (See, Rotman Decl. at ¶ 5, Ex. 7.) Additionally, $194.45 was incurred not for electronic filing, but for “Info Track Fees” [ibid.], which are not automatically recoverable. As Plaintiffs provide no evidence showing how these fees were reasonably necessary to the litigation, they fail to establish they are recoverable.
GM also challenges the $150 in jury fees paid by Plaintiffs. Jury fees are proper on their face. (See C.C.P. § 1033.5(a)(1).) Although the present case did not go to trial, Plaintiffs were required to pay the jury fees in order to preserve the right to a jury trial in event the case did not settle. The jury fee must be paid on or before the date scheduled for the initial case management conference. (C.C.P. § 631(c).)
Fees for legal research are not recoverable under California law absent an agreement of the parties or statutory authority. (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 776.) Such costs are part of attorney overhead and are not recoverable. Further, Plaintiffs fail to show that these fees were reasonable and necessary to the litigation.
Finally, GM challenges the $680 sought by Plaintiffs for mediation fees. However, mediation fees are recoverable in the court’s discretion. (Anthony v. Li (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 816, 824; C.C.P. 1033.5 (c)(4).) As Plaintiffs presents evidence those fees were incurred [Rotman Decl., Ex. 8], they are recoverable.
Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs GRANTED in part.
The following the reductions in costs: $374.45 electronic fees + $625 court reporter fees + $49.43 legal research for a total tax of $1,048.88.
Costs awarded to Plaintiff in the amount of $3,177.83 ($4,226.71-1,048.88).
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR OTHER PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY CVPS2502070 VAN WINKLE VS COHEN DAMAGE/WRONGFUL DEATH TORT (OVER $35,000) OF ADRIAN VAN WINKLE BY MELISSA COHEN Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling. Motion is continued to 9.01.26.
If the opposing party shows by declaration that essential evidence “may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion” or continue it for a reasonable period, or “make any other order as may be just.” (
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?”
To be entitled to a continuance, the party opposing the motion for summary judgment must show that its proposed discovery will lead to facts essential to justify opposition. (Scott v. CIBA Vision Corp. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 307, 325-326.) The opposing party’s declaration in support of a motion to continue the hearing should show facts establishing a likelihood that controverting evidence may exist and why the information sought is essential to opposing the motion; the specific reasons why such evidence cannot be presented at the present time; an estimate of the time necessary to obtain such evidence; and the specific steps or procedures the opposing party intends to utilize to obtain such evidence. (CCP §437c(h); see Granadino v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2015) 236 Cal.Ap..4th 411, 420.)
Plaintiff provides the declaration of Attorney Samuel Hopkins. Hopkins asserts the outstanding discovery is directly relevant to the issues of whether Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of dangerous conditions at the property, whether prior incidents or law enforcement activity made the subject shooting foreseeable, whether Defendant had the ability to take reasonable measures in response to conditions at the property, and whether Defendant acted reasonably. (Hopkins Decl. ¶11.) Hopkins states: “The less-redacted/unredacted law enforcement records, additional firearm-related records, and witness testimony are expected to yield evidence directly bearing on Defendant’s claim that she lacked knowledge of any prior issues at the property.” (Hopkins Decl. ¶11.)
Hopkins contends Plaintiff has acted diligently in pursuing discovery, including propounding written discovery, obtaining the police records, requesting unredacted versions of those records, contacting the Sheriff’s Department regarding the November 3, 2023 firearm-related event, and noticing Defendant’s deposition. (Hopkins Decl. ¶13.) Hopkins does not provide an estimate of the time necessary to obtain all of the outstanding evidence but has provided the Notice of Defendant’s Deposition (set for June 16, 2026) and demonstrated that Plaintiff is waiting on law enforcement to provide additional records.
Motion for Summary Judgment continued to 9.01.26 pursuant to CCP 437c(h).
Case Management Conference calendared for 6.30.26 is continued to 8.18.26. Plaintiff is directed to submit an updated Case Management Statement at least 10 days prior to the August 18th date, addressing the status of the outstanding discovery they believe is relevant to the Motion for Summary Judgment and provide a date for when that discovery will be completed if still pending at the time of submission of the Case Management Statement. Plaintiff to use pleading paper and not CM-110 for the updated statement.
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION BY DEFENDANTS MIRAGE ENDOSCOPY CENTER, LLC. AND MIRAGE ENDOSCOPY CENTER, LP TO DOE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO BE NAMED MIRAGE ENDOSCOPY CVPS2507533 AND TO STRIKE PSEUDONYM BY CENTER, LLC., A MIRAGE ENDOSCOPY CENTER, LLC., CORPORATE ENTITY A CORPORATE ENTITY, MIRAGE ENDOSCOPY CENTER, LP, A CORPORATE ENTITY Tentative Ruling: The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to CCP § 435:
(a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.
(b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.
Motions to strike can be used to attack the entire pleading, or any part thereof, i.e., even single words or phrases. (CCP § 435; Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 393- 394; Warren v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 40.) As with demurrers, the grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the pleading under attack, or from matter which the court may judicially notice. (CCP § 437(a).) “[T]he court treats as true the material facts alleged in the complaint, as well as any facts which may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged.” (Washington Int’l Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 981, 984, fn. 2.)
CCP § 436(b) allows the court at any time in its own discretion or upon timely motion under CCP § 435 by a party, to strike a part of the pleading “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” This has been found to authorize “the striking of a pleading due to improprieties in its form or in the procedures pursuant to which it was filed.” (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528 [emphasis in original].) But this is “commonly invoked to challenge pleadings filed in violation of a deadline, court order, or requirement of prior leave of court.” (Id.)
Mirage does not provide any authority establishing the right to strike the FAC based on what it argues is Plaintiff’s improper use of a pseudonym. However, “[t]he names of all parties to a civil action must be included in the complaint.” (Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Superior Court (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 105, 109.) Due to “the inherently sensitive nature of some proceedings, statutes specifically allow for keeping certain parties’ identities confidential.” (Id. at 110.) “Even in the absence of a statute, anonymity for parties may be granted when necessary to preserve an important privacy interest.” (Id.)
When a plaintiff seeks to sue using a pseudonym, they are supposed to file their initial complaint conditionally using the pseudonym and then move for an order granting permission to proceed with the pseudonym. (Department of Fair Employment & Housing, supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at 111, fn. 1.) “If the request is granted, the initial pleading can remain. If pseudonym use is denied, the pleading must be amended to state the party’s