Martinez v. Brownco Const. 2/10/12 CA2/1

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B226665

Case Date: 05/09/2012

Preview:Filed 2/10/12

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

RAYMOND MARTINEZ et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. BROWNCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Appellant.

B226665 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KC050128)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Elihu Berle, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Lindahl Beck, George M. Lindahl and Laura H. Huntley for Defendant and Appellant. Baker, Burton & Lundy and Albro L. Lundy III for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

___________________________________

All parties appeal from an order awarding costs to the plaintiffs following a jury trial. Defendant maintains plaintiffs are not entitled to the cost of presenting an edited video recording of the deposition of a witness or the cost of a PowerPoint presentation used during closing argument. Plaintiff Gloria Martinez contends the court erred in taxing expert witness fees incurred between her successive Code of Civil Procedure section 998 settlement offers.1 We conclude plaintiffs are entitled to the cost of the video presentation but not the PowerPoint presentation. Gloria is entitled to expert witness costs incurred from the date of her earliest reasonable offer. BACKGROUND Raymond Martinez was injured in an electrical explosion at work. He and Gloria, his wife, sued Brownco Construction Company (Brownco), which had performed demolition work at the job site, for negligence and loss of consortium.2 Brownco answered, alleging that Raymonds and his employers negligence caused the explosion. On August 30, 2007, Raymond served on Brownco a statutory offer to compromise pursuant to section 998 in the amount of $4,750,000. Gloria offered to compromise for $250,000. Brownco neither accepted nor rejected the offers, and they were withdrawn by operation of law after a statutory 30-day period had passed. (

Download Martinez v. Brownco Const. 2/10/12 CA2/1.pdf