Montoya v. Mayfield CA2/4

Filed 4/6/15 Montoya v. Mayfield CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

OFELIA MONTOYA, B255995

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PC052062) v.

ADOLPHUS MAYFIELD et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles Country, Craig D. Karlan, Judge. Affirmed. Harrington, Foxx, Dubrow & Canter, Edward R. Leonard and Daniel E. Kenney, for Defendants and Appellants. Ardalan & Associates, P. Christopher Ardalan and Mark K. Drew, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________

Appellants Adolphus Mayfield (Mayfield) and Central Transport, Inc., appeal from an order granting respondent Ofelia Montoya’s motion for prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code section 3291 and denying appellants’ motion to strike 1 respondent’s expert witness fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998. Finding no error, we affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY In December 2010, Monica Porras and Karla Hernandez were involved in a vehicle collision with a truck that caused Porras’s death and left Hernandez seriously injured. The truck driver, appellant Mayfield, was employed by appellant Central Transport, Inc. (Central) and was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the collision. Mayfield’s truck was owned by GLS Leaseco, Inc. (GLS), which is not a party to this appeal. Hernandez and Montoya, as heir and successor in interest to Porras, filed a complaint against appellants and GLS (collectively defendants). On August 2, 2011, Hernandez and Montoya (collectively plaintiffs) filed an offer to compromise pursuant to section 998 in the sum of $1,000,000. The offer was rejected. Prior to trial, plaintiffs dismissed GLS. The trial commenced, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury attributed 50 percent of the fault to Porras, resulting in a net recovery of $294,767.65 for Hernandez and $1,082,200 for Montoya. After the verdict, defendants moved to strike plaintiffs’ claimed expert costs by arguing that the section 998 offer was “fatally deficient.” Plaintiffs opposed the motion and sought prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code section 3291. The trial court 2 granted expert witness fees and prejudgment interest as to Montoya, but not Hernandez. Appellants appeal the trial court’s order granting expert witness fees and