Motion-Secondary: JODY TAYLOR VS. SIMAYOF INC. ET AL

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                SARIT SIMHAYOFF-COHEN (SBN 231555) ELECTRONICALLY

ATTORNEY AT LAW FILED

36 Cottonwood Drive Superior Court of Catifornia,
San Rafael, CA 94901 County of San Francisco
Telephone 415-407-4197 02/21/2019

Clerk of the Court
BY:EDNALEEN ALEGRE

Attorney for Zack Namer and Namer Inc. Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT- STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO- UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

JODY TAYLOR, Case No.: No. CGC 17-556588
DEFENDANTS ZACK NAMER AND
Plaintiff, NAMER INC OPPOSSITION TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TAX
COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES; DECLERATION
OF SARIT SIMHAYOFF-COHEN

vs.

SIMAYOF INC, NAMER INC, ZACH
NAMER, SARIT NAMER, ADI SIMAYOF,
YDAF INC; DOES 1 - 25, inclusive

Defendants
Date: March 5", 2019
Dept: 303

Time: 9:30am

SS SSS

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff filed suit against Six (6) Defendants in this case, three corporate defendants and three
individual defendants. Plaintiff prevailed against one named defendant, Sarit Simhayoff-Cohen, and
against World of Charms Inc.

Therefore, in Plaintiff's case against Namer Inc. and Zack Namer are the prevailing parties

and there are entitled to their court costs.

-l-

Def. Opposition motion to taxIl. GOVERNING LAW

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 governs what costs are and are not allowable to a
prevailing party under section 1032. The prevailing party’s allowable costs are set forth in
subdivision (a) of section 1033.5. Costs not allowable to the prevailing party are set forth at
subdivision (b) of section 1033.5. Section 1033.5 (c) provides that “allowable costs shall be
reasonably necessary to the conduct of the Litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to
its preparation.” The cost must be “reasonable in amount.” (Code of Civ. Pro §1033.5, subd. (c)(2)-
@).)

Zack Namer and Namer Inc.’s complies with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure
1033.5.

1. Plaintiff's Timeliness Argument is Wrong
The Deadline for filing a memorandum of costs also specifies a deadline of filing the memorandum
within 180 days of entry of judgment: Plaintiff's own memorandum of points and authorities cites
California Rules of Court 3.1700(a)(1) which states as follows:

“A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15
days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under
Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment
or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first. The memorandum of
costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her
knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case.”

In this case judgment was entered on December 10", 2018. Zack Namer and Namer Inc. filed
their memorandum within 180 days after entry of judgment, Therefore, Namer Inc and Zack
Namer’s cost memorandum should be considered by this court. Moreover, this court has discretion

to provide relief under section 473. (Douglas v Willis (1994) 27 Cal.App.4" 287, 290.

2-

Def. Opposition motion to tax2. Zack Namer and Namer Inc’s Costs are recoverable according to CCP 1033.5 and are

both reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.

They were not merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 explains what types of costs are recoverable under section

1032. CCP section 1033.5(a) lists various items that are allowable, Defendants in their cost
memorandum listed only these items which are recoverable by law.

a. Plaintiff’s objection to Item No. 1 filing and Motion fees is without any merit,

These costs are allowed according to 1033.5

According to CCP 1033.5 (a) (1) filing fees and motion fees are recoverable by the
prevailing party. Zack Namer and Namer Inc each paid $450 in first appearance filing fees. These
filing fees were necessary to litigate this action. Without filing these fees, Defendants would not
have been allowed to appear in this case and a judgment would have been entered against them.
Therefore, this cost should be granted by this court.

Zack Namer and Namer Inc filed a motion to vacate the entry of default that was taken
against them by Plaintiff. There is no question that such motions were necessary to litigate this
matter otherwise a default judgment would have been entered against them.

Plaintiffs argument of trying to shift the blame to Zack Namer and Namer Inc. is ridiculous.
The court clearly found that Plaintiff wrongfully obtained a default entry against Zack Namer and
Namer Inc. Plaintiff failed to do its due diligence and rushed into obtaining a default against Zack
Namer and Namer Inc. as a result it was necessary for both to file a motion to vacate the default
against them. The cost of filing the motions was $180. Counsel for Zack Namer and Namer Inc.

mistakenly added the court reporter fees of $60 in this section.

3+

Def. Opposition motion to taxRespectfully, Zack Namer and Namer Inc. is requesting the court to allow them to amend
their memorandum of cost and move the $60 cost to court reporter’s fees. These fees are also
recoverable according to CCP 1033.5 (a) 11

b. Plaintiff's objection to Item No. 12 exhibits is without any merit. These costs are

allowed according to 1033.5(a)(130
According to CCP 1033.5 (a)13 such costs are allowed to be recovered. The copies and

prints in this case were necessary to the litigation of this case, without such documents Zack Namer
and Namer Inc would not have been able to litigate this case properly.

c. Plaintiff's objection to Item No. 14 fees for e-filing is without any merit. These

costs are allowed according to 1033.5 (a)(14)

As of December 8, 2014, the Superior Court of California County of San Francisco requires

mandatory electronic file and serve of all subsequent documents in Civil and Probate Trust cases.

(Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, California Rules of Court 2.253(b)(2) and San Francisco

Superior Court Local Rule 2.10.)

Zack Namer and Namer Inc did all its filings through onelegal which is a designated San

Francisco Superior Court efiling vendor.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein and in the accompanying declaration, Defendant Zack Namer
and Namer Inc. request that the court grant their motion to recover their court costs in the total
amount of $1817.53, such amount is extremely reasonable and understated.

February 21st, 2019

7 Sarit Sfotiayoff-Cohen
Attomey for Defendants

-4-

Def. Opposition motion to tax