Preview
F a
APR
L
2_4
E
.2018
D
Clerk of the Court
Coun d CA
Superior d Same Clara
Bv DEPUTY
\OOONQUIAL'JN—
Lam
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
O DIANA P. BLUM, M.D., Case No. 115-CV-277582
H
Plaintiff, TENTATIVE DECISION RE MOTION TO TAX
N COSTS
VS.
DJ
A SUTI'ER HEALTH, a California corporation; PALO
LII
ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a
California Corporation; PALO ALTO MEDICAL
O\ FOUNDATION, a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 20,
N
W Defendants.
NNNNNNNNN—HHHH#—_.H_
O
O
—‘
This matter isset for hearing in Department 16 on April 24, 2018. Plaintiff, Diana P.
N Blum, M.D., is represented by attorneys, Theresa J. Barta, Barta Law, and Charles M.
W Louderback and Stacey L. Pratt, Louderback Law Group. Defendants, Sutter Health and Palo
Alto Medical Foundation (”PAMF”), are represented by attorneys, Lindbergh Porter and Maiko
m_b
Nakarani, Little Mendelson, P.C. Defendant, Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group, |nc., is
Q represented by attorneys, Marcie lsom Fitzsimmons and Hieu T. Williams, Gordon Rees SculIy
\l
Mansuhani, L.L.P.
00
Hearing isfor Plaintiff’s motion to strike and tax Defendants Sutter Health and Palo Alto
Medical Foundation’s memorandum of costs.
After consideration of the pleadings submitted in support of, inopposition to and in
reply to opposition to the motion, and application of law, THE COURT ISSUES THE FOLLOWING
TENTATIVE RULING:
\OOOVOLJ‘ADJN—
Plaintiff’s motion concerns hotel costs incurred by Defendants’ counsel during trial in
the amount of $8,557.361. This isa cost item not specifically allowable under Code of Civ. Proc.
Section 1033.5(a), but may be recoverable in the discretion of the Court ifreasonably necessary
to the conduct of the litigation (rather than merely convenient or beneficial to preparation) and
reasonable in amount. Code Civ. Proc. Section 1033.5(b).
Based on the distances and time required for counsel to travel from residences to court
for trial,counsel’s declaration for necessity to work on the case and description of work in
between days of trial, and the Court’s observation of the proceedings, counsel staying
overnight in San Jose and incurring hotel costs during trial was reasonably necessary to the
conduct of the litigation, and not merely convenient or beneficial to preparation.
The negotiated, hotel rate paid by Defendants’ counsel is reasonable based on the
declarations of rates incurred, and declaration of comparable hotels within proximity of the
court. Plaintiff’s motion to strike or tax costs is DENIED, and Defendants’ Sutter Health and
NNNNNNNNN_.—.—..—-p—n.—H_~—
PAMF are awarded
mwomkwN—OOWNQMAWN—O
costs as prevailing parties in the amount of $51,006.26.
Dated: Aprilgé, 2018
n. Drew C. Takaichi
dge of the Superior Court
1
Item 16 of Defendants’ memorandum of costs filed 02.21.18.
NOTICE TO PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Notice of the Court’s tentative ruling, and a copy of the tentative ruling, ishereby
provided to the attorneys for the parties prior to hearing. The Court has not directed oral
argument, and the attorneys are informed to follow the procedure set forth in Santa Clara
\o‘ooqmm-waH
County Superior Court Local Rule 8.E. Tentative Rulings which the Court adopts in connection
With this tentative ruling. Should a party contest the tentative ruling, the required notice to
the Court may be by email to the clerk of Department 16 (JLara@scscourt.org) no later
than 4:00 P.M. on the court day preceding the scheduled hearing.
NNNNNNNNN~—~—~_.—H.——n
OONQMAWNHOOOOVQM¢WNHO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE
191 NORTH FIRST STREEr
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113
CIVIL DIVISION
Am 2_ 4 2018
Clerk the
Com
Superior OCfA Cofoslalnr;
01am
By
DEPUTY
RE: D. Blum vs Sutter Health, et al J.
Lara
Case Number: 2015-1-CV-277582
PROOF OF SERVICE
- ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
-TENTATIVE DECISION RE MOTION TO TAX COSTS
was delivered to the partie'slisted below the above entitledcase as set forth in thesworn declaration below.
Ifyou. a partyrepresented by you,or a witness tobe calledon pany
behalf of that need an accommodation under theAmerican with
Disabilities
Act, please contactthe Court Administrator's
office at (408)882-2700. or use the Court’sTDD line(408) 882-2690 or the
VoicefTDD California Relay Service (800) 735-2922.
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL: |declare that|served this a true copy in a sealed envelope,
notice by enclosing addressed to
each person whose name is shown below. and by depositing the envelope with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at San Jose,
CA on April 24, 201 8‘
CLERK OF THE COURT, by Julie Lara, Deputy.
Theresa J Barta Esq.
4041 Macarthur Blvd
Newport Beach CA 92660
Maiko Nakarai-Kanivas Esq.
1255 Treat Blvd Suite 600
Walnut Creek CA 94597
Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons Esq.
Gordon & Rees
275 Battery St #2000
San Francisco CA 94111
Charles M Louderback Esq.
44 Montgomery Street Suite 2970
San Francisco CA 94104
Lindbergh Porter Jr Esq.
333 Bush St Floor 34
San Francisco CA 94104
CW—9027 REV 12/08/16 PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
F a APR L 2_4 E .2018 D Clerk of the Court Coun d CA Superior d Same Clara Bv DEPUTY \OOONQUIAL'JN— Lam SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA O DIANA P. BLUM, M.D., Case No. 115-CV-277582 H Plaintiff, TENTATIVE DECISION RE MOTION TO TAX N COSTS VS. DJ A SUTI'ER HEALTH, a California corporation; PALO LII ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California Corporation; PALO ALTO MEDICAL O\ FOUNDATION, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, N W Defendants. NNNNNNNNN—HHHH#—_.H_ O O —‘ This matter isset for hearing in Department 16 on April 24, 2018. Plaintiff, Diana P. N Blum, M.D., is represented by attorneys, Theresa J. Barta, Barta Law, and Charles M. W Louderback and Stacey L. Pratt, Louderback Law Group. Defendants, Sutter Health and Palo Alto Medical Foundation (”PAMF”), are represented by attorneys, Lindbergh Porter and Maiko m_b Nakarani, Little Mendelson, P.C. Defendant, Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group, |nc., is Q represented by attorneys, Marcie lsom Fitzsimmons and Hieu T. Williams, Gordon Rees SculIy \l Mansuhani, L.L.P. 00 Hearing isfor Plaintiff’s motion to strike and tax Defendants Sutter Health and Palo Alto Medical Foundation’s memorandum of costs. After consideration of the pleadings submitted in support of, inopposition to and in reply to opposition to the motion, and application of law, THE COURT ISSUES THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING: \OOOVOLJ‘ADJN— Plaintiff’s motion concerns hotel costs incurred by Defendants’ counsel during trial in the amount of $8,557.361. This isa cost item not specifically allowable under Code of Civ. Proc. Section 1033.5(a), but may be recoverable in the discretion of the Court ifreasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation (rather than merely convenient or beneficial to preparation) and reasonable in amount. Code Civ. Proc. Section 1033.5(b). Based on the distances and time required for counsel to travel from residences to court for trial,counsel’s declaration for necessity to work on the case and description of work in between days of trial, and the Court’s observation of the proceedings, counsel staying overnight in San Jose and incurring hotel costs during trial was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and not merely convenient or beneficial to preparation. The negotiated, hotel rate paid by Defendants’ counsel is reasonable based on the declarations of rates incurred, and declaration of comparable hotels within proximity of the court. Plaintiff’s motion to strike or tax costs is DENIED, and Defendants’ Sutter Health and NNNNNNNNN_.—.—..—-p—n.—H_~— PAMF are awarded mwomkwN—OOWNQMAWN—O costs as prevailing parties in the amount of $51,006.26. Dated: Aprilgé, 2018 n. Drew C. Takaichi dge of the Superior Court 1 Item 16 of Defendants’ memorandum of costs filed 02.21.18. NOTICE TO PARTIES AND COUNSEL Notice of the Court’s tentative ruling, and a copy of the tentative ruling, ishereby provided to the attorneys for the parties prior to hearing. The Court has not directed oral argument, and the attorneys are informed to follow the procedure set forth in Santa Clara \o‘ooqmm-waH County Superior Court Local Rule 8.E. Tentative Rulings which the Court adopts in connection With this tentative ruling. Should a party contest the tentative ruling, the required notice to the Court may be by email to the clerk of Department 16 (JLara@scscourt.org) no later than 4:00 P.M. on the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. NNNNNNNNN~—~—~_.—H.——n OONQMAWNHOOOOVQM¢WNHO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE 191 NORTH FIRST STREEr SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 CIVIL DIVISION Am 2_ 4 2018 Clerk the Com Superior OCfA Cofoslalnr; 01am By DEPUTY RE: D. Blum vs Sutter Health, et al J. Lara Case Number: 2015-1-CV-277582 PROOF OF SERVICE - ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL -TENTATIVE DECISION RE MOTION TO TAX COSTS was delivered to the partie'slisted below the above entitledcase as set forth in thesworn declaration below. Ifyou. a partyrepresented by you,or a witness tobe calledon pany behalf of that need an accommodation under theAmerican with Disabilities Act, please contactthe Court Administrator's office at (408)882-2700. or use the Court’sTDD line(408) 882-2690 or the VoicefTDD California Relay Service (800) 735-2922. DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL: |declare that|served this a true copy in a sealed envelope, notice by enclosing addressed to each person whose name is shown below. and by depositing the envelope with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at San Jose, CA on April 24, 201 8‘ CLERK OF THE COURT, by Julie Lara, Deputy. Theresa J Barta Esq. 4041 Macarthur Blvd Newport Beach CA 92660 Maiko Nakarai-Kanivas Esq. 1255 Treat Blvd Suite 600 Walnut Creek CA 94597 Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons Esq. Gordon & Rees 275 Battery St #2000 San Francisco CA 94111 Charles M Louderback Esq. 44 Montgomery Street Suite 2970 San Francisco CA 94104 Lindbergh Porter Jr Esq. 333 Bush St Floor 34 San Francisco CA 94104 CW—9027 REV 12/08/16 PROOF OF SERVICE