Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV17692, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17692    Hearing Date: March 6, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On May 8, 2020, Plaintiff Bertha Fierro (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for negligence and premises liability against Defendants White Memorial Medical Center dba Adventist Health White Memorial (erroneously sued as White Memorial Medical Plaza) and Adventist Health System/West (erroneously sued as System West Adventist Health) (collectively, “Defendants”).

On October 1, 2021, Defendants filed an answer.  

On September 11, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Judgment for Defendants was entered on January 5, 2024.  

On January 9, 2024, Defendants filed and served notice of the entry of the judgment.  

On January 19, 2024, Defendants filed and served electronically, its Memorandum of Costs (forms MC-010 and MC-011), claiming $4,074.90 in costs.  

On February 2, 2024 Plaintiff filed the instant motion to tax Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. section 1032, subd. (b).) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subd. (c)(2), allowable costs “shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.”¿Subdivision (3) requires: “Allowable costs shall be reasonable in amount.”¿“Items not mentioned in [Section 1033.5] and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court’s discretion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(4).) There is no requirement that copies of bills, invoices, statements, or any other such documents be attached to the memorandum. Only if the costs have been put in issue via a motion to tax costs must supporting documentation be submitted. (Bach v. County of Butte (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 294, 308.)

On a motion to tax costs, “[i]f the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. However, because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774, internal citations omitted.) “The court’s first determination, therefore, is whether the statute expressly allows the item, and whether it appears proper on its face. If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show them to be unnecessary or unreasonable.” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131, internal citations omitted.) The objecting party does not meet this burden by arguing that the costs were not necessary or reasonable, but must present evidence and prove that the costs are not recoverable. (Litt v. Eisenhower Med. Ctr. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1224; Seever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557.)

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the filing of both Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs and Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs are timely under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700.

Next, as Plaintiff did not “recover any relief against” Defendants, Defendants are the prevailing party in this action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) Defendants are therefore entitled to recover their costs. 

Plaintiff seeks to tax $1,880.25 from Defendants’ memorandum of costs in item 1, which seeks $2,794.75 for filing and motion fees. Plaintiff argues that $1,880.25 consists of third-party convenience fess which fall outside of Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(14) and rush and courtesy filing fees in violation of section 1033.5(c)(2).

Filing and Motion Fees 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(14) allows costs for “[f]ees for the electronic filing or service of documents through an electronic filing service provider if a court requires or orders electronic filing or service of documents.” Additionally, section 1033.5(c)(2) states that “[a]n award of costs shall be subject to the following: . . . Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.”

Here, the values appear reasonable on the face of the memorandum. Plaintiff argues that most of Defendant’s filing costs originate from fees charged by Nationwide Legal, a third-party filing vendor. Plaintiff argues Defendants could have directly filed with the Court through Judicial Technology for a nominal fee. (Motion, 3.) However, Plaintiff does not cite to any law to support that only the baseline electronic filing fees are recoverable. Section 1033.5(a)(14) specifically provides for “fees for the electronic filing or service of documents through an electronic filing service provider.” Therefore, Plaintiff fails to show that any additional charges that Defendant incurred for electronically filing papers, via its provider, were unreasonable.

However, Plaintiff also challenges costs for courtesy copies on 10/27/21, 4/19/23, 5/9/23, 5/11/23, 8/25/23. Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order Re: PI Court Procedures, courtesy copies are required for Ex Parte Applications, Motions for Summary Judgment, Oppositions to Ex Parte Applications and Motions for, Oppositions to, and Replies to Oppositions to Motions for Summary Judgment, and must be submitted directly to the Court.  (Super. Ct. L.A. County 8th Amended Standing Order Re: PI Court Procedures ¶ 9C.)

The courtesy copies that Plaintiff contests were for ex parte applications, and a summary judgment motion, except May 9, 2023, which appears to be for a motion to advance the summary judgment hearing. (See Memo. Costs, Invoice #57395.) Thus, the costs for courtesy copies of the ex parte applications and summary judgment motion are permitted. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c)(4) [“Items not mentioned in this section and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court's discretion.”].) According to Defendants’ Attachment 1g in the Memorandum of Costs, $45.95 was charged for the May 9, 2023 motion to advance the summary judgment motion, which according to invoice #57395, pertained to courtesy copies. Defendants do not oppose this motion. Therefore, the Court strikes $45.95 in costs since courtesy copies for a non- ex parte application or summary judgment motion are not recoverable under section 1033.5.

Accordingly, the Court grants in part the motion to strike only $45.95 in costs (“5/9/23 Notice of Motion to Court (Nationwide Legal)”). The remainder of Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.