Morris v. Wilson CA4/3

Filed 6/20/13 Morris v. Wilson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

TARON EUGENE MORRIS et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents, G047534

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2010-00344370)

JACOB DANIEL WILSON, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andrew P. Banks, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Law Offices of Tioni A. Pham, Tioni A. Pham; and Grace Ogburn for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

INTRODUCTION The only issue in this appeal is whether a defendant who may be entitled to costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 9981 – because the plaintiffs did not accept his offers to compromise and did not do better at trial – must apportion the costs between or among multiple plaintiffs. The trial court denied the motion of appellant Jacob Wilson to assess costs and enter judgment against respondents Taron Morris and Janae Vannell because he filed a single memorandum of costs, without indicating which costs applied to which plaintiff. We reverse. We have found no authority for requiring a defendant whose costs may exceed the plaintiffs’ jury verdict to apportion costs when he files his memorandum of costs after the plaintiffs proceeded in lockstep on a single theory and were represented by the same attorney. If the plaintiffs objected to the costs bill, they were required to move to tax costs in the trial court. They made no such motion.2 We return the matter to the trial court to evaluate Wilson’s request for costs and a judgment in his favor. FACTS Morris and Vannell sued Wilson for negligence in connection with a car accident involving both of them. The same lawyer represented both plaintiffs, and the single complaint stated causes of action on behalf of both plaintiffs together. Wilson made individual statutory offers to compromise to each plaintiff for $10,000 in February 2011, offers that neither plaintiff accepted. The case went to trial in November 2011. The jury awarded Morris $7,000 and Vannell $6,000 in total damages (including general damages).