Synchef v. Najma International
Filed 2/6/07 Synchef v. Najma International CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
RICHARD M. SYNCHEF, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NAJMA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants and Respondents. | A113644 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-03-420294) |
Plaintiff Richard M. Synchef rejected a Code of Civil Procedure section 998[1] offer to compromise but lost at trial, and the defendants claimed nearly $50,000 in costs. In this appeal from the order denying his motion to tax costs, Synchef argues the defendants were not entitled to recover costs pursuant to section 998 because their settlement offer was made in bad faith and was reasonably rejected. In the alternative, he contends the cost award should be reduced to exclude certain unrecoverable costs. We affirm the order.
BACKGROUND
On October 16, 2002, Synchef's automobile was hit from behind by a van driven by Anis Abidi, who was employed as a delivery driver for Najma International Corporation (Najma). Synchef filed a personal injury lawsuit against defendants Abidi and Najma in May 2003, and he ultimately sought to recover $15,000 in wage losses and over $75,000 in medical and hospital expenses related to back surgery he underwent in June 2004.
The defendants maintained Synchef's injuries and surgery resulted from his preexisting condition of advanced progressive degenerative arthritis, and the forces generated in the accident were too minor to have exacerbated this condition. After substantial discovery, on July 11, 2005, defendants made an offer to compromise pursuant to section 998 in the amount of $2,500. Synchef did not accept this offer, and it expired 30 days later.[2] (§ 998, subd. (b)(2) [offer not accepted within 30 days after it is made is deemed withdrawn].) The case proceeded to an eight-day jury trial, during which both sides presented testimony from expert witnesses. Because the defendants admitted liability, the only questions for the jury concerned causation and damages. The jury returned a special verdict finding (by a margin of 10 to 2) that the defendants' negligence was not a substantial factor in causing injury to Synchef, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants on September 21, 2005.
Defendants submitted a memorandum of costs seeking recovery of $49,527.27 in costs. The largest items claimed were for deposition costs ($4,051.50), costs associated with exhibits ($3,970.24) and expert witness fees ($36,264.41). Synchef filed a motion to tax costs arguing that while defendants were entitled to some costs as prevailing parties, they were not entitled to additional costs, such as expert witness fees, under section 998 because their offer to compromise â€
