Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 19STCV21378, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV21378 Hearing Date: November 15, 2023 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION OF PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT TO TAX
COSTS.
The motion is denied.
On 6/17/19, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging:
Plaintiff rented from Defendant a unit, not designed to be habitable, in an illegally
converted house, at 2500 Lake View Avenue, Los Angeles. Defendant concealed the lack of conversion
permits, demanded excess rent in violation of the Los Angeles Rent
Stabilization Ordinance (LARSO), and gave a Declaration of Intent to Evict for
Landlord Occupancy, without paying required relocation assistance.
On 3/11/20, Defendant filed a First Amended
Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff, alleging that Cross-Defendant EMMONS
unjustly retained the benefit of living in the Building's "Lower
Unit" without paying rent required by the written lease, negligently
caused a need to replace the unit's heating system, to pay for additional
maintenance of the unit's electrical system and to repair and repaint walls and
ceilings, and fraudulently stated to the lessor that it "was an illegal
unit without the requisite permits."
On 5/17/23, the Court entered a Judgment On Jury
Verdict, in favor of Defendant/Cross-Complainant for $14,700.00.
On 7/31/23, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions for
new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Emmons (“Emmons” or “moving
party”) filed a motion to tax costs as to items 11, 12 and 16 of the Memorandum
of Costs. Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Jesso (“opposing party”) opposes the motion.
Item 11-- $15,753.75 Court
Reporter Fees
Moving
party argues that the parties had agreed to split the costs of the court
reporter fees. In response, opposing
party contends that Emmons failed to pay any reporter fees, despite repeated
requests, and so opposing party is entitled to recover the full amount
incurred. Further,
opposing party states that the motion is deficient as it does not include any
declaration of his attorney or any other supporting evidence, citing County of
Kern v. Ginn (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1113-1114.
If
items on a memorandum of costs appear on their face to be proper, the verified
memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety, shifting the
burden of proof to the attacking party. Adams
v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1486-87. If a statute
expressly allows the particular item of costs and it appears proper on its
face, then the burden is on the objecting party to show the costs are
unreasonable or unnecessary. Rozanova
v. Uribe (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 392, 399. “‘The trial court's exercise of
discretion in granting or denying a motion to tax costs will not be disturbed
if substantial evidence supports its decision.’” Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 52. Prevailing
parties are “statutorily entitled to recover court reporter fees.” Benach v. County of L.A. (2007)149
Cal. App. 4th 836, 859 (citing, e.g.,
CCP §1033.5(a)(11)). Accord Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 58.
Here,
the motion includes no evidence that Emmons has ever paid his half of the reporter
fees and the opposition evidences all claimed costs. If moving party could evidence paying half of
the reporter fees per the parties’ stipulation, and not leaving it to opposing
party to fully pay the reporter, then the Court could tax half of the reporter
costs, per the enforceable stipulation. But given that Emmons has thus far
failed to provide any such evidence, the motion is denied as to reporter fees.
Item 12-- $678.02 Models, Enlargements, and
Photocopies of Exhibits
Moving party contends that
opposing party did not rely on models or enlargements, and that the sum in item
12 is for excessive photocopy expenses. Moving party further contends the
amount sought is excessive because opposing party only provided two of the
exhibit binders needed for trial.
According to opposing party, counsel paid $678.02 for the costs of
preparation of trial binders, including copying and printing exhibits, by
Keystone Document Discovery (Citron Dec., ex. 2 (Keystone Invoice #33100)).
Costs for demonstratives and
photocopies of exhibits prepared for trial, even those not used in trial, are
recoverable in the court’s discretion under California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1033.5(c)(4), when reasonably necessary to litigation conduct and
reasonable in amount. Segal v. ASICS
Am. Corp. (2022) 12 Cal. 5th 651, 667.
The Court exercises its discretion
in concluding that opposing party is entitled to recover the claimed costs of
preparation of trial binders, including copying and printing of exhibits,
because the costs are reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to conduct
the trial. The motion therefore is denied as to item 12.
Item 16-- $9,338.40 Other CCP § 1033.5(a) Costs Of
Electronic Presentation Of Exhibits
Moving party contends that it should not have to incur
the expense of an “in-house” agent of opposing counsel who was present to “aid”
in the electronic presentation of exhibits. Moving party also argues the costs
should be disallowed pursuant to § 1033.5(c), because the fact that opposing
counsel found using a trial consultant convenient is not sufficient to allow an
award of such costs. Moving party also contends that opposing party provided no
substantiation of the costs incurred.
Costs for more expensive technological methods may be
awarded as being reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. El
Dorado Meat Co. v. Yosemite Meat and Locker Service, Inc. (2007) 150
Cal.App.4th 612, 620. But
see Science Applications Int’l. Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 39
Cal.App.4th 1095, 1105 (concluding that various technological methods were
merely convenient or beneficial.).
Courts have discretion to allow costs for “high-tech” methods to display
documents to the jury if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of
fact. American Airlines, Inc. v.
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1057.
Courts have discretion under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5,
subdivision (c), to allow costs for new technologies, but costs are not
routinely awarded for high-powered technology that is unreasonably expensive considering
case value and the availability of cheaper, conventional methods. Science Applications Internat. Corp. v.
Sup. Ct. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1105.
The Court concludes that the independent trial consultant
used by opposing party provided technological methods that were reasonably
helpful to aid the trier of fact, for expenses that were reasonable in amount.
Opposing party provided a declaration from trial counsel detailing the work
that the trial consultant at Trialspeak.com provided, including downloading
Jesso's trial exhibits and relevant deposition transcripts into a digital
database for presentation to the jury at trial, preparing the graphics and
exhibits used during jury selection, providing the exhibits and graphics in
support of Jesso's Trial Counsel Thomas H. Citron’s opening statements and
closing arguments, and electronically displaying exhibits and graphics used
during direct examination and cross-examination of witnesses (Citron Dec. ¶6 & Ex. 3). All these
services undoubtedly aided the jury in following along with the presentation of
evidence and argument at trial. Opposing
party also included the invoice from Trialspeak.com for the 6-day trial, which
is reasonable given the number of services provided by the trial consultant.
Therefore, the motion is denied as to the costs of
electronic presentation of exhibits.
Conclusion
The motion to tax costs is denied.