Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania v. Internat. Assn. of Plumbing CA4.1 (2013) · DecisionDepot
Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania v. Internat. Assn. of Plumbing CA4.1
California Court of Appeal Dec 17, 2013 No. D062050Unpublished
Filed 12/17/13 Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania v. Internat. Assn. of Plumbing et. al. CA4.1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE D062050 OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. GIC879718) v.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIAL, RESEARCH & TESTING et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa C.
Schall, Judge. Affirmed.
Greenberg Traurig, William J. Goines and Alice Y. Chu, for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
Neil, Dymott, Frank, McFall & Trexler, Clark R. Hudson and David P. Burke, for
Defendants and Respondents.
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ISOP), assignee of plaintiff
Treo@Kettner Homeowners Association (HOA), appeals an order denying HOA's
motion to tax costs. The motion asked the court to reduce the award of expert witness
fees granted under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, subdivision (c)(1),1 to
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Official, Research & Testing
(IAPMO). ISOP argues that awarding IAPMO payment for all of its expert witness fees
incurred since the suit was filed exceeds the scope of the statutory language: "actually
ISOP tries to assert a challenge to the trial court's interpretation of section 998,
which would require us to independently review the matter. (People ex rel. Lockyer v.
Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 432.) ISOP urges that the court failed to
properly interpret the limitation of section 998 fees to those "actually incurred and
reasonably necessary in . . . preparation for trial." What ISOP fails to do, however, is
make any showing that the court misinterpreted the statute.
In the May 10, 2012, hearing on the matter, the court expressly stated, "I think
[IAPMO] made a sufficient showing in the reply to the oppo[sition] that these expert
expenses were directly related and necessary for preparation for trial." The court further
explained:
"I think it would be absolutely incumbent upon [IAPMO] under that fact pattern to go to great lengths in having their experts prepare as they did so in this trial. Their expenses in this matter, I think, were reasonable in light of what they were facing in the way of testimony, particularly from Mr. Ivey, who was your key witness in this matter.
2 The court made adjustments to the ordinary witness fees and photocopying charges, but the details are omitted since they are not relevant to this appeal. 3
I think for them to do less than that, I think they would have fallen short in representing their client's interest. [¶] So I think that the balance of making sure that there is not a piling on of unnecessary expert preparation is one thing, but in this case I am satisfied that there clearly was none of that. I think it was absolutely necessary for the defense in this case."
The court articulated an understanding of what section 998 allows and explained
its application. We see no evidence of misinterpretation. It seems ISOP is actually
arguing that the court abused its discretion in determining what was necessary in
preparation for trial. The standard of review for expert witness fees awarded under
section 998 is ordinarily abuse of discretion. (Bates v. Presbyterian Intercommunity
Hospital, Inc. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 210, 221; Adams v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199
Cal.App.4th 1475, 1482.) "The trial court was in a far better position, having heard the
entire case and observed the demeanor of witnesses, to exercise this discretion and
determine what was a reasonable amount and what was reasonably necessary." (Huber,
Hunt & Nichols, Inc. v. Moore (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d. 278, 315.)
The burden is on the appellant to establish an abuse of discretion, and "unless a
clear case of abuse is shown along with a miscarriage of justice, a reviewing court will
not substitute its opinion and thereby divest the trial court of its discretionary power."
(Najera v. Huerta (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 872, 877; see also Nelson v. Anderson (1999)
72 Cal.App.4th 111, 136.) ISOP, however, did not include any particular errors in its
opening brief for us to evaluate. ISOP included some specifics of costs to exclude in its
reply brief, but it was too late to do so. An appellant "abandons an issue by failing to
raise it in the opening brief." (H.N. & Frances C. Berger Foundation v. City of
4
Escondido (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1, 15.) " 'Obvious considerations of fairness in
argument demand that the appellant present all of his or her points in the opening brief.' "
(SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. v. Five Bridges Foundation (2012) 203
Cal.App.4th 549, 573, fn. 18.)
Even without abandonment, we would find against ISOP. The record contains a
memorandum of costs, a motion to tax costs with points and authorities, an opposition to
the motion to tax costs, a reply to the opposition, and a hearing on the matter where both
parties were represented. There was sufficient evidence available to the trial court to
make its determination of what was reasonably necessary in preparation for trial. Thus,
we find no abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their appeal costs.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
MCINTYRE, J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's order denying a motion to tax expert witness fees, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the fees were reasonably necessary for trial preparation.
Issues
Did the trial court misinterpret Code of Civil Procedure section 998 regarding the award of expert witness fees?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in determining the amount of expert witness fees that were reasonably necessary for trial preparation?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Because the statute gives trial courts discretion in awarding expert witness fees and case law supports a broad view of what is reasonably necessary in preparation for trial, we affirm the order.”
“The trial court was in a far better position, having heard the entire case and observed the demeanor of witnesses, to exercise this discretion and determine what was a reasonable amount and what was reasonably necessary.”