Preview
Jennifer A. Kuenster, State Bar No. 104607
jkuenster@nixonpeabody.com
Leon V. Roubinian, State Bar No. 226893
lroubinian@nixonpeabody.com
NIXON PEABODY LLP FILED
One Embarcadero Center, 32 Floor mupeiinr ae eons
&
San Francisco, CA 94111-3600
Telephone: (415) 984-8268 MAR 27 2019
AN
Fax: (866) 904-6525 Jake Chatters
DB
pafeinive Officer & Clerk
Kristi J. Livedalen, State Bar No. 155207 y: 0.Lucatuorto, Deputy
SYN
klivedalen@nixonpeabody.com
Jeanette C. Suarez, State Bar No. 255141
Oo
jsuarez@nixonpeabody.com
NIXON PEABODY LLP
So
300 South Grand Avenue, Ste. 4100
10 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 629-6000
11 Fax: (213) 629-6001
12 Attorneys for Defendants
13 FCA US LLC and ROSEVILLE MOTOR
CORPORATION dba AUTONATION
14 CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM ROSEVILLE
15
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
16
COUNTY OF PLACER
17
JAMES M. THOMPSON, Case No.: SCV0039299
18
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
19 AND MOTION TO TAX PLAINTIFF’S
FAX
vs. COSTS
20
21 FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Date: April 30, 2019
BY
Liability Company; ROSEVILLE MOTOR Time: 8:30 a.m.
22 CORPORATION, a California Corporation Dept.: 40
dba AUTONATION CHRYSLER DODGE
23 JEEP RAM ROSEVILLE; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive,
24
25 Defendants.
26
27
28
-1-
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS
4838-3334-0047.1
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 30, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard inDepartment 40 of the above-entitled court located at 10820 Justice Center
W
Drive, Roseville, CA 95678, Defendants FCA US LLC and
-_
ROSEVILLE MOTOR
CORPORATION dba AUTONATION CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM ROSEVILLE
WN
(collectively “Defendants”) will move this court for an order
DAD
taxing the Memorandum of Costs
filed by Plaintiff JAMES M. THOMPSON (“Plaintiff”) in the amount of $9,268.23. The motion
y
is made on the grounds that the costs and expenses set forth inthe Memorandum of Costs are
excessive, duplicative, unnecessary, and unreasonable. More particularly, pursuant to California
10 Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(2), the specific items objected to include the following:
ll Item No. 4 (Deposition Costs): Defendants object to the following entries, totaling
12 $6,390.08, on the grounds that they excessive, duplicative, unnecessary, and unreasonable:
13 e Sac. FCA Personnel (421.75)
14 e Chris Ashley ($321.88).
15 e AutoNation Tech #1577 ($321.88).
16 e AutoNation’s Gregory Stebbing ($321.89)
17 e AutoNation’s Donald Harmon ($321.89)
18 e AutoNation Tech #2416 ($321.88).
19 e AutoNation Tech #8271 ($321.88).
20 e W. Miller ($530.62).
21 e =R.Jones ($530.62).
22 e B. Morrow ($495.97).
23 e G. Stebbing ($495.96).
24 e C. Ashley ($495.96).
25 e D. Harmon ($495.96).
26 e E. Miles ($495.96).
27 J. Haines ($495.96).
28
12624470.1 1-
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS
4838-3334-0047.1
Item No. 5 (Service of Process): Defendants object to the following entries, totaling
$590.00, on the grounds that they are excessive, duplicative, unnecessary, and unreasonable:
WN
Sac. Chrysler’s PMQ ($110.00).
WY
Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #9079 ($10.00).
Fe
Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #16008 ($10.00).
On
Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16059 ($10.00).
DO
Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16007 ($10.00).
YI
Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #9065 ($10.00).
Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #16606 ($10.00).
10 Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16029 ($110.00).
11 Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16033 ($10.00).
12 Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16080 ($10.00).
13 Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #9155 ($110.00).
14 Civil Subp. — AutoNation Chrysler’s PMQ ($145.00)
15 Civil Subp. — Sacramento Chrysler’s PMQ ($135.00)
16 Item No. 13 (Other): Defendants object to the claimed costs for travel, totaling $2,288.15
17 because they are excessive, duplicative, unnecessary, and unreasonable.
18 Defendants’ motion ismade pursuant to California Civil Code sections 1794(d) and
19 California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b) and isbased on this Notice of Motion, the
20 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the Motion, the Declaration of Leon V.
21 Roubinian, the arguments that will be made at the time of the hearing, the pleadings and files in
22 this matter, and such further and other evidence and information as the Court deems just and
23 proper.
24 /I/
2 ///
26 ///
27 /I/
28 III
12624470.1 -2-
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS
4838-3334-0047.1
Dated: March 27, 2019 NIXON PEABODY LLP
Jennifer A. Kuenster
Kristi J. Livedalen
Leon V. Roubinian
Attorneys for Defendants
FCA US LLC and ROSEVILLE MOTOR
CORPORATION
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12624470.1 3-
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS
4838-3334-0047.1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff James Thompson (‘Plaintiff’) filed a Memorandum of Costs seeking to recover
$12,258.58. Itincludes numerous items that appear excessive, unreasonable, unnecessary, and
duplicative. Accordingly, Defendants FCA US LLC (“FCA US”) and ROSEVILLE MOTOR
CORPORATION (collectively “Defendants”) move the Court for an order taxing Plaintiff's costs
in the amount of $9,268.23.
10 Il.
11 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS SHOULD BE REDUCED BY $8,846.48
12 AS UNREASONABLY SOUGHT IN THIS MATTER
13 Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 28, 2017, seeking restitution under the Song-
14 Beverly Act, civil penalties, and incidental and consequential damages. See Declaration of Leon
15 V. Roubinian (““Roubinian Decl.”) in support of motion, §j3. Plaintiff's pleadings, written
16 discovery, and subpoenas were nearly identical to those prepared by Plaintiff's counsel in almost
17 every one of the hundreds of cases they have filed throughout California against FCA US.
18 Roubinian Decl., § 4. Following settlement, Plaintiff now seeks costs that are excessive,
19 duplicative, unnecessary, and unreasonable. Defendants move to tax Plaintiffs’ costs as discussed
20 more fully below.
21 A. DEPOSITION COSTS (Item No. 4)
22 Plaintiff seeks to pass onto Defendants the following costs totaling $6,390.08 relating to
23 fifteen depositions:
24 e Sac. FCA Personnel ($421.75)
25 e Chris Ashley ($321.88).
26 e AutoNation Tech #1577 ($321.88).
27 e AutoNation’s Gregory Stebbing ($321.89)
28 e AutoNation’s Donald Harmon ($321.89)
12624470.1 -4-
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS
4838-3334-0047.1
e AutoNation Tech #2416 ($321.88).
e AutoNation Tech #8271 ($321.88).
e W. Miller ($530.62).
e =R.Jones ($530.62).
e B. Morrow ($495.97).
e G. Stebbing ($495.96).
e C. Ashley ($495.96).
e D. Harmon ($495.96).
e E. Miles ($495.96).
10 e J. Haines ($495.96).
11 (i) Sac. FCA Personnel
12 Defendants are not aware of the depositions of any of FCA US’s personnel located in
13 Sacramento, California, having been taken. Roubinian Decl., 45. Accordingly, the amount of
14 $421.75 should be stricken.
15 (ii) Dealership Personnel
16 The remaining deposition costs Plaintiff seeks pertain to the dealership personnel.
17 Plaintiff's counsel iswell aware, from years of representing plaintiffs in lemon law cases, that 1)
18 the dealership personnel rarely ever remember the work they performed on the vehicles from years
19 prior, therefore the depositions usually result in simply reading from the repair orders and 2) the
20 dealership personnel are rarely ever called to trial. Deposing dealership personnel, or attempting
21 to, issimply a way to increase fees and costs, whether or not Plaintiff's counsel would admit to it.
22 In sum, Plaintiffs’ deposition costs relating to “Sac. FCA Personnel” and the dealership
23 personnel are excessive, unnecessary, and unreasonable, and should be reduced by $6,390.08.
24 B. SERVICE OF PROCESS (Item No. 5)
25 Plaintiff lists costs pertaining to service of subpoenas on dealership personnel at
26 Sacramento Chrysler and AutoNation Chrysler. Plaintiff's counsel iswell aware, from years of
27 representing plaintiffs in lemon law cases, that 1) the dealership is usually represented by FCA’s
28 counsel in these matters, even in a limited capacity of representing itspersonnel indepositions and
12624470.1 -5-
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS
4838-3334-0047.1
that FCA’s counsel has agreed and accepted service of deposition subpoenas on behalf of the
dealership personnel; and 2) the personal service of the deposition subpoenas alloccurred at the
same location and therefore should not be billed separately for each one.
In this case, it appears that Plaintiff served the following dealership personnel with
deposition subpoenas at the same location on the same day:
e Sac. Chrysler’s PMQ ($110.00).
e Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #9079 ($10.00).
e Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #16008 ($10.00).
e Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16059 ($10.00).
10 e Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16007 ($10.00).
11 e Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #9065 ($10.00).
12 e Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #16606 ($10.00).
13 e Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16029 ($110.00).
14 e Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16033 ($10.00).
15 e Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16080 ($10.00).
16 e Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #9155 ($110.00).
17 Yet Plaintiff is claiming separate charges for each witness. These charges are excessive,
18 duplicative, and unreasonable. If Plaintiff's counsel chooses to submit the actual invoices relating
19 to these items, they will likely show that the multiple subpoenas were delivered to one individual
20 at the dealership authorized to accept service for the personnel. In other words, the process server
21 did not have to separately find and deliver a subpoena to each employee.
22 These charges are also unnecessary because defense counsel would have accepted service
23 of these subpoenas.
24 Finally, Plaintiff isclaiming charges of $145.00 and $135.00 for service of trialsubpoenas.
25 Again, these charges are unnecessary because defense counsel would have accepted service of
26 these subpoenas.
27 In sum, Plaintiff's costs relating to service of process should be reduced by $590.00.
28
12624470.1 -6-
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS
4838-3334-0047.1
C. OTHER (Item No. 13)
Plaintiff seeks “Travel” costs of $2,288.15. Under the Song-Beverly Act, costs must be
“reasonably incurred” to be allowable. Civil Code § 1794(d). Here, the claimed costs were not
reasonably incurred.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he tried to obtain local counsel and that doing so was
impracticable. See Rey v.Madera Unified School Dist. (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 1223, 1241).
There is no evidence as to why Plaintiff needed to hire two Los Angeles law firms to handle this
straightforward lemon law case in Placer County. Indeed, there isno shortage of lemon law
attorneys in Northern California who were capable of providing Plaintiff with solid representation.
10 Defendants should not bear the cost of Plaintiff's expensive decision to hire two out-of-town law
11 firms to represent him in this garden variety case. Furthermore, these costs appear duplicative
12 because the claimed deposition costs already include travel costs. Plaintiff could have avoided
13 this uncertainty by providing some more detail and proper itemization in the Memorandum of
14 Costs, but chose not to do so. For these reasons, travel costs of $2,288.15 are unreasonable,
15 duplicative and should be disallowed.
16 Ill.
17 CONCLUSION
18 Under Civil Code section 1794(d), Plaintiff is only entitled to recover costs and expenses
19 “determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the
20 commencement and prosecution of such action.” In this matter, itis unreasonable for the Plaintiff
21 to recover the costs set forth above. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the Court
22 grant their Motion to Tax Plaintiff's Costs in the amount of $9,268.23.
23 /I/
24 /I/
25 /I/
26 /I/
27 ///
28 /I/
12624470.1 -7-
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS
4838-3334-0047.1
Dated: March 27, 2019 NIXON PEABODY LLP
Jennifer A. Kuenster
Kristi J. Livedalen
Leon V. Roubinian
Attorneys for Defendants
FCA US LLC and ROSEVILLE MOTOR
CORPORATION
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12624470.1 -8-
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS
4838-3334-0047.1
DECLARATION OF LEON V. ROUBINIAN
I,Leon V. Roubinian, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all the courts of the State of
California, and an attorney with the law firm of NIXON PEABODY LLP, counsel of record for
defendants FCA US LLC and ROSEVILLE MOTOR CORPORATION (collectively
“Defendants”) in this matter.
DH
2, I have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein. I could and would testify
NY
competently to these facts ifrequired to do so. Imake this declaration insupport of Defendants’
CO
Motion to Tax costs.
Co
10 3. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 28, 2017, seeking restitution under the
11 Song-Beverly Act, civil penalties, and incidental and consequential damages.
12 4. Plaintiffs pleadings, written discovery, and subpoenas were nearly identical to
13 those prepared by Plaintiff's counsel in almost every one of the hundreds of cases they have filed
14 throughout California against FCA US.
15 as I have reviewed the file in thismatter. I am not aware of the depositions of any of
16 FCA US LLC’s personnel located in Sacramento, California, having been taken.
17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
18 foregoing istrue and correct. Executed on March 27, 2019, in San Francisco, California.
19
20
Leon V. Roubinian
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12624470.1 9-
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS
4838-3334-0047. 1
PROOF OF SERVICE
WH
CASE NAME: James M. Thompson vs. FCA US LLC, et al.
COURT: Placer Superior Court
WW
CASE NO.: SCV0039299
NP FILE: 053780.1831
Fe
I,the undersigned, certify that 1 am employed in 1) the City and County of Los Angeles, or
OW
2) the City and County of San Francisco, CA; I am over the age of 18-years and not a party to this
action; my business address is 1) 300 S. Grand Avenue, 41‘ Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, or
Do
2) One Embarcadero Ctr., 32" Fl., San Francisco, CA 94111-3600. On March 27, 2019, I served
the following document(s):
Y
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX PLAINTIFF’S COSTS
on the parties stated below, through their attorneys of record, by placing true copies thereof in
sealed envelopes addressed as shown below by the following means of service:
10 XX_: By First-Class Mail — | am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence isdeposited
11 with the United States Postal Service on the same day as collected, with first-classpostage thereon
fully prepaid, in San Francisco, California, for mailing to the office of the addressee following
12 ordinary business practices.
Addressee(s)
13
Steve Mikhov, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
14 Amy Morse, Esq.
Knight Law Group LLP T: 310.552.2250
15 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 F: 310.552.7973
Los Angeles, CA 90067
16 Email: stevem@knightlaw.com
amym@knightlaw.com
17
18 Sepehr Daghighian, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak, P.C.
19 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 e eee =
Los Angeles, CA 90067 ,
20 Email: sd@hdmnlaw.com
21
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March
22 27, 2019, atSan Francisco and/or Los Angeles, California.
23
24 7
Babiera (San Francisco, CA)
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
48 16-2588-9865.3
Preview
Jennifer A. Kuenster, State Bar No. 104607 jkuenster@nixonpeabody.com Leon V. Roubinian, State Bar No. 226893 lroubinian@nixonpeabody.com NIXON PEABODY LLP FILED One Embarcadero Center, 32 Floor mupeiinr ae eons & San Francisco, CA 94111-3600 Telephone: (415) 984-8268 MAR 27 2019 AN Fax: (866) 904-6525 Jake Chatters DB pafeinive Officer & Clerk Kristi J. Livedalen, State Bar No. 155207 y: 0.Lucatuorto, Deputy SYN klivedalen@nixonpeabody.com Jeanette C. Suarez, State Bar No. 255141 Oo jsuarez@nixonpeabody.com NIXON PEABODY LLP So 300 South Grand Avenue, Ste. 4100 10 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 629-6000 11 Fax: (213) 629-6001 12 Attorneys for Defendants 13 FCA US LLC and ROSEVILLE MOTOR CORPORATION dba AUTONATION 14 CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM ROSEVILLE 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 16 COUNTY OF PLACER 17 JAMES M. THOMPSON, Case No.: SCV0039299 18 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION 19 AND MOTION TO TAX PLAINTIFF’S FAX vs. COSTS 20 21 FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Date: April 30, 2019 BY Liability Company; ROSEVILLE MOTOR Time: 8:30 a.m. 22 CORPORATION, a California Corporation Dept.: 40 dba AUTONATION CHRYSLER DODGE 23 JEEP RAM ROSEVILLE; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 24 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 -1- DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS 4838-3334-0047.1 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 30, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard inDepartment 40 of the above-entitled court located at 10820 Justice Center W Drive, Roseville, CA 95678, Defendants FCA US LLC and -_ ROSEVILLE MOTOR CORPORATION dba AUTONATION CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM ROSEVILLE WN (collectively “Defendants”) will move this court for an order DAD taxing the Memorandum of Costs filed by Plaintiff JAMES M. THOMPSON (“Plaintiff”) in the amount of $9,268.23. The motion y is made on the grounds that the costs and expenses set forth inthe Memorandum of Costs are excessive, duplicative, unnecessary, and unreasonable. More particularly, pursuant to California 10 Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(2), the specific items objected to include the following: ll Item No. 4 (Deposition Costs): Defendants object to the following entries, totaling 12 $6,390.08, on the grounds that they excessive, duplicative, unnecessary, and unreasonable: 13 e Sac. FCA Personnel (421.75) 14 e Chris Ashley ($321.88). 15 e AutoNation Tech #1577 ($321.88). 16 e AutoNation’s Gregory Stebbing ($321.89) 17 e AutoNation’s Donald Harmon ($321.89) 18 e AutoNation Tech #2416 ($321.88). 19 e AutoNation Tech #8271 ($321.88). 20 e W. Miller ($530.62). 21 e =R.Jones ($530.62). 22 e B. Morrow ($495.97). 23 e G. Stebbing ($495.96). 24 e C. Ashley ($495.96). 25 e D. Harmon ($495.96). 26 e E. Miles ($495.96). 27 J. Haines ($495.96). 28 12624470.1 1- DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS 4838-3334-0047.1 Item No. 5 (Service of Process): Defendants object to the following entries, totaling $590.00, on the grounds that they are excessive, duplicative, unnecessary, and unreasonable: WN Sac. Chrysler’s PMQ ($110.00). WY Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #9079 ($10.00). Fe Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #16008 ($10.00). On Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16059 ($10.00). DO Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16007 ($10.00). YI Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #9065 ($10.00). Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #16606 ($10.00). 10 Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16029 ($110.00). 11 Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16033 ($10.00). 12 Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16080 ($10.00). 13 Depo Subp. - Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #9155 ($110.00). 14 Civil Subp. — AutoNation Chrysler’s PMQ ($145.00) 15 Civil Subp. — Sacramento Chrysler’s PMQ ($135.00) 16 Item No. 13 (Other): Defendants object to the claimed costs for travel, totaling $2,288.15 17 because they are excessive, duplicative, unnecessary, and unreasonable. 18 Defendants’ motion ismade pursuant to California Civil Code sections 1794(d) and 19 California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b) and isbased on this Notice of Motion, the 20 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the Motion, the Declaration of Leon V. 21 Roubinian, the arguments that will be made at the time of the hearing, the pleadings and files in 22 this matter, and such further and other evidence and information as the Court deems just and 23 proper. 24 /I/ 2 /// 26 /// 27 /I/ 28 III 12624470.1 -2- DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS 4838-3334-0047.1 Dated: March 27, 2019 NIXON PEABODY LLP Jennifer A. Kuenster Kristi J. Livedalen Leon V. Roubinian Attorneys for Defendants FCA US LLC and ROSEVILLE MOTOR CORPORATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12624470.1 3- DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS 4838-3334-0047.1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff James Thompson (‘Plaintiff’) filed a Memorandum of Costs seeking to recover $12,258.58. Itincludes numerous items that appear excessive, unreasonable, unnecessary, and duplicative. Accordingly, Defendants FCA US LLC (“FCA US”) and ROSEVILLE MOTOR CORPORATION (collectively “Defendants”) move the Court for an order taxing Plaintiff's costs in the amount of $9,268.23. 10 Il. 11 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS SHOULD BE REDUCED BY $8,846.48 12 AS UNREASONABLY SOUGHT IN THIS MATTER 13 Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 28, 2017, seeking restitution under the Song- 14 Beverly Act, civil penalties, and incidental and consequential damages. See Declaration of Leon 15 V. Roubinian (““Roubinian Decl.”) in support of motion, §j3. Plaintiff's pleadings, written 16 discovery, and subpoenas were nearly identical to those prepared by Plaintiff's counsel in almost 17 every one of the hundreds of cases they have filed throughout California against FCA US. 18 Roubinian Decl., § 4. Following settlement, Plaintiff now seeks costs that are excessive, 19 duplicative, unnecessary, and unreasonable. Defendants move to tax Plaintiffs’ costs as discussed 20 more fully below. 21 A. DEPOSITION COSTS (Item No. 4) 22 Plaintiff seeks to pass onto Defendants the following costs totaling $6,390.08 relating to 23 fifteen depositions: 24 e Sac. FCA Personnel ($421.75) 25 e Chris Ashley ($321.88). 26 e AutoNation Tech #1577 ($321.88). 27 e AutoNation’s Gregory Stebbing ($321.89) 28 e AutoNation’s Donald Harmon ($321.89) 12624470.1 -4- DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS 4838-3334-0047.1 e AutoNation Tech #2416 ($321.88). e AutoNation Tech #8271 ($321.88). e W. Miller ($530.62). e =R.Jones ($530.62). e B. Morrow ($495.97). e G. Stebbing ($495.96). e C. Ashley ($495.96). e D. Harmon ($495.96). e E. Miles ($495.96). 10 e J. Haines ($495.96). 11 (i) Sac. FCA Personnel 12 Defendants are not aware of the depositions of any of FCA US’s personnel located in 13 Sacramento, California, having been taken. Roubinian Decl., 45. Accordingly, the amount of 14 $421.75 should be stricken. 15 (ii) Dealership Personnel 16 The remaining deposition costs Plaintiff seeks pertain to the dealership personnel. 17 Plaintiff's counsel iswell aware, from years of representing plaintiffs in lemon law cases, that 1) 18 the dealership personnel rarely ever remember the work they performed on the vehicles from years 19 prior, therefore the depositions usually result in simply reading from the repair orders and 2) the 20 dealership personnel are rarely ever called to trial. Deposing dealership personnel, or attempting 21 to, issimply a way to increase fees and costs, whether or not Plaintiff's counsel would admit to it. 22 In sum, Plaintiffs’ deposition costs relating to “Sac. FCA Personnel” and the dealership 23 personnel are excessive, unnecessary, and unreasonable, and should be reduced by $6,390.08. 24 B. SERVICE OF PROCESS (Item No. 5) 25 Plaintiff lists costs pertaining to service of subpoenas on dealership personnel at 26 Sacramento Chrysler and AutoNation Chrysler. Plaintiff's counsel iswell aware, from years of 27 representing plaintiffs in lemon law cases, that 1) the dealership is usually represented by FCA’s 28 counsel in these matters, even in a limited capacity of representing itspersonnel indepositions and 12624470.1 -5- DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS 4838-3334-0047.1 that FCA’s counsel has agreed and accepted service of deposition subpoenas on behalf of the dealership personnel; and 2) the personal service of the deposition subpoenas alloccurred at the same location and therefore should not be billed separately for each one. In this case, it appears that Plaintiff served the following dealership personnel with deposition subpoenas at the same location on the same day: e Sac. Chrysler’s PMQ ($110.00). e Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #9079 ($10.00). e Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #16008 ($10.00). e Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16059 ($10.00). 10 e Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16007 ($10.00). 11 e Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #9065 ($10.00). 12 e Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #16606 ($10.00). 13 e Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16029 ($110.00). 14 e Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16033 ($10.00). 15 e Sacramento Chrysler’s Tech #16080 ($10.00). 16 e Sacramento Chrysler’s SA #9155 ($110.00). 17 Yet Plaintiff is claiming separate charges for each witness. These charges are excessive, 18 duplicative, and unreasonable. If Plaintiff's counsel chooses to submit the actual invoices relating 19 to these items, they will likely show that the multiple subpoenas were delivered to one individual 20 at the dealership authorized to accept service for the personnel. In other words, the process server 21 did not have to separately find and deliver a subpoena to each employee. 22 These charges are also unnecessary because defense counsel would have accepted service 23 of these subpoenas. 24 Finally, Plaintiff isclaiming charges of $145.00 and $135.00 for service of trialsubpoenas. 25 Again, these charges are unnecessary because defense counsel would have accepted service of 26 these subpoenas. 27 In sum, Plaintiff's costs relating to service of process should be reduced by $590.00. 28 12624470.1 -6- DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS 4838-3334-0047.1 C. OTHER (Item No. 13) Plaintiff seeks “Travel” costs of $2,288.15. Under the Song-Beverly Act, costs must be “reasonably incurred” to be allowable. Civil Code § 1794(d). Here, the claimed costs were not reasonably incurred. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he tried to obtain local counsel and that doing so was impracticable. See Rey v.Madera Unified School Dist. (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 1223, 1241). There is no evidence as to why Plaintiff needed to hire two Los Angeles law firms to handle this straightforward lemon law case in Placer County. Indeed, there isno shortage of lemon law attorneys in Northern California who were capable of providing Plaintiff with solid representation. 10 Defendants should not bear the cost of Plaintiff's expensive decision to hire two out-of-town law 11 firms to represent him in this garden variety case. Furthermore, these costs appear duplicative 12 because the claimed deposition costs already include travel costs. Plaintiff could have avoided 13 this uncertainty by providing some more detail and proper itemization in the Memorandum of 14 Costs, but chose not to do so. For these reasons, travel costs of $2,288.15 are unreasonable, 15 duplicative and should be disallowed. 16 Ill. 17 CONCLUSION 18 Under Civil Code section 1794(d), Plaintiff is only entitled to recover costs and expenses 19 “determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the 20 commencement and prosecution of such action.” In this matter, itis unreasonable for the Plaintiff 21 to recover the costs set forth above. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the Court 22 grant their Motion to Tax Plaintiff's Costs in the amount of $9,268.23. 23 /I/ 24 /I/ 25 /I/ 26 /I/ 27 /// 28 /I/ 12624470.1 -7- DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS 4838-3334-0047.1 Dated: March 27, 2019 NIXON PEABODY LLP Jennifer A. Kuenster Kristi J. Livedalen Leon V. Roubinian Attorneys for Defendants FCA US LLC and ROSEVILLE MOTOR CORPORATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12624470.1 -8- DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS 4838-3334-0047.1 DECLARATION OF LEON V. ROUBINIAN I,Leon V. Roubinian, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all the courts of the State of California, and an attorney with the law firm of NIXON PEABODY LLP, counsel of record for defendants FCA US LLC and ROSEVILLE MOTOR CORPORATION (collectively “Defendants”) in this matter. DH 2, I have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein. I could and would testify NY competently to these facts ifrequired to do so. Imake this declaration insupport of Defendants’ CO Motion to Tax costs. Co 10 3. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 28, 2017, seeking restitution under the 11 Song-Beverly Act, civil penalties, and incidental and consequential damages. 12 4. Plaintiffs pleadings, written discovery, and subpoenas were nearly identical to 13 those prepared by Plaintiff's counsel in almost every one of the hundreds of cases they have filed 14 throughout California against FCA US. 15 as I have reviewed the file in thismatter. I am not aware of the depositions of any of 16 FCA US LLC’s personnel located in Sacramento, California, having been taken. 17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 18 foregoing istrue and correct. Executed on March 27, 2019, in San Francisco, California. 19 20 Leon V. Roubinian 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12624470.1 9- DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS 4838-3334-0047. 1 PROOF OF SERVICE WH CASE NAME: James M. Thompson vs. FCA US LLC, et al. COURT: Placer Superior Court WW CASE NO.: SCV0039299 NP FILE: 053780.1831 Fe I,the undersigned, certify that 1 am employed in 1) the City and County of Los Angeles, or OW 2) the City and County of San Francisco, CA; I am over the age of 18-years and not a party to this action; my business address is 1) 300 S. Grand Avenue, 41‘ Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, or Do 2) One Embarcadero Ctr., 32" Fl., San Francisco, CA 94111-3600. On March 27, 2019, I served the following document(s): Y DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX PLAINTIFF’S COSTS on the parties stated below, through their attorneys of record, by placing true copies thereof in sealed envelopes addressed as shown below by the following means of service: 10 XX_: By First-Class Mail — | am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence isdeposited 11 with the United States Postal Service on the same day as collected, with first-classpostage thereon fully prepaid, in San Francisco, California, for mailing to the office of the addressee following 12 ordinary business practices. Addressee(s) 13 Steve Mikhov, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14 Amy Morse, Esq. Knight Law Group LLP T: 310.552.2250 15 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 F: 310.552.7973 Los Angeles, CA 90067 16 Email: stevem@knightlaw.com amym@knightlaw.com 17 18 Sepehr Daghighian, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak, P.C. 19 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 e eee = Los Angeles, CA 90067 , 20 Email: sd@hdmnlaw.com 21 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 22 27, 2019, atSan Francisco and/or Los Angeles, California. 23 24 7 Babiera (San Francisco, CA) 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE 48 16-2588-9865.3