Safavi v. Ritzau CA4/3

Filed 5/6/25 Safavi v. Ritzau CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

NAZILA SAFAVI,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G062901

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01065460)

KRISTEN RITZAU et al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Layne H. Melzer, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Motions to augment record and request for judicial notice denied. Nazila Safavi, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar, James D. Savage, Jennie L. Hertzog, and Mark P. LaScola for Defendants and Respondents.

Nazila Safavi sued her dentist for professional negligence and related claims. The trial court granted the dentist’s summary judgment motion and awarded the dentist approximately $6,400 in costs. Safavi appeals from that costs award. We largely affirm the trial court’s order, finding no abuse of discretion in awarding costs for deposing Safavi or subpoenaing records. However, because the trial court awarded CourtCall fees under a recently repealed statute, we reverse that portion of the order and remand the matter for further proceedings. FACTS Safavi received a series of dental treatments from Dr. Kristen Ritzau and her dental practice, Kristen Ritzau, D.D.S., Inc. (collectively, Ritzau). After experiencing severe mouth pain, Safavi filed a complaint against Ritzau and another dental provider, Dr. Colby Livingston, for professional negligence and lack of informed consent. Livingston and Ritzau, represented by separate counsel, conducted discovery, which included deposing Safavi and subpoenaing records from her other providers. Livingston and Ritzau each filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted both motions and entered judgments in their favor. Livingston and Ritzau then each filed a costs memorandum, with Livingston seeking $9,679.20 and Ritzau seeking $7,581.18. Among other costs, Ritzau sought $2,789.25 for Safavi’s deposition and over $3,000 in subpoena fees and CourtCall fees. Safavi appealed the judgment in favor of Ritzau. A different panel of this court affirmed, finding Safavi’s claims against Ritzau were barred by the statute of limitations. (Safavi v. Ritzau (Dec. 21, 2022, G060189 [nonpub. opn.].)