Chen v. Kennedy

Filed 2/5/07  Chen v. Kennedy CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

            APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Joseph F. De Vanon, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Susan Y. Chen, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

            Richardson, Bambrick, Cermak and Fair and Stephen Kalpakian for Defendants and Respondents.

__________________

            Susan Chen sued Signe Quale Kennedy and Wesley Kennedy for injuries she allegedly suffered in a minor traffic accident.  The Kennedys served Chen with an offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998,[1] but Chen did not respond.  After the Kennedys prevailed at trial, they were awarded $12,356.90 in costs, including expert witness fees.  On appeal from the postjudgment order of costs, Chen contends the court erred in awarding expert witness fees and other costs.  We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            1.  The Accident

            As Signe Kennedy pulled her car out of a parking space in a department store parking lot in Pasadena, the front corner of her car hit the rear corner of Chen's car as Chen pulled into the space next to Kennedy's.  The estimated speed of both cars was under five miles per hour. 

            2.  The Lawsuit and the Kennedys' Offer to Compromise

            Chen sued Signe Kennedy and her husband Wesley Kennedy (the registered owner of the car Signe Kennedy was driving) alleging she had suffered extensive personal injuries and needed substantial and on-going medical treatment as a result of the accident.[2]  Chen sought more than $75,000 in medical expenses and additional damages for pain, suffering and loss of income.  On July 22, 2004 the Kennedys served Chen with a $3,000 statutory offer to compromise pursuant to section 998, proposing each side bear its own costs.  Chen did not respond. 

            3.  The Trial and Judgment

            After a non-jury trial, the court entered a verdict in favor of the Kennedys and awarded Chen nothing on her complaint.  The court concluded Chen had failed to satisfy her burden of showing a causal connection between the accident and the claimed damages.  Judgment was entered on November 15, 2004.  Chen was served with notice of entry of judgment on the same date.

            4.  Postjudgment Order of Costs

            The Kennedys filed a memorandum of costs on February 16, 2005 seeking $14,485.25 in costs, including $10,670 in expert witness fees.  Chen filed a motion to tax costs.  On February 28, 2005 the court granted Chen's motion in part, disallowing the Kennedys' request to recover the cost of an interpreter who was not used during Chen's deposition, as well as the costs incurred in obtaining Chen's extensive medical records.  The court awarded the Kennedys $12,356.90 in costs, including $10,670 for expert witness fees.[3] 

            5.  Chen's Appeal from the Judgment and the Postjudgment Order of Costs

            Chen filed her notice of appeal from the November 15, 2004 judgment on April  12, 2005.  On August 1, 2005 Chen's appeal was dismissed as untimely under former California Rule of Court, rule 2(a)(2) (now rule 8.104 (a)(2)).  After Chen advised the court in a motion to vacate the August 1, 2005 dismissal of the appeal that a separate cost award had been entered on February 16, 2005 and provided a copy of the trial court's February 16, 2005 order, the appeal was reinstated solely with respect to the February 16, 2005 postjudgment order of costs. 

DISCUSSION

            In a 50-page opening appellate brief focused almost entirely on issues relating to her dismissed appeal from the underlying judgment,[4] Chen devotes essentially a single sentence to her contention the postjudgment cost order is â€