Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: BC671202, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC671202    Hearing Date: August 3, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

On October 4, 2022, judgment was entered against George Boyadzhyan (Plaintiff) and for Mark Geragos, Geragos & Geragos APC, and Ben Meiselas (Defendants).

On October 18, 2022, Defendants filed a Memorandum of Costs (MOC) for costs totaling $19,254.73.

On October 19, 2022, Defendants filed a Revised MOC (RMOC), with one additional cost, for costs totaling $25,518.46.

On November 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to tax costs in items 8, 9, and 16 of Defendants’ RMOC, representing costs totaling $19,142.26.  

Defendants did not file an opposition. A proof of service by email is attached to the motion.

The motion is now before the Court.

Motion to Strike or Tax Costs

Legal Standard

In general, the “prevailing party” is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs for suit in any action or proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606; Scott Co. Of Calif. v. Blount, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1103, 1108.) Assuming the “prevailing party” requirements are met, the trial court has no discretion to order each party to bear his or her own costs of suit. (Michell v. Olick (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1198; Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 129.) The term “prevailing party” for costs purposes is defined by statute to include:  

(1) The party with a net monetary recovery;  

(2) A defendant who is dismissed from the action;  

(3) A defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant recovers anything; and  

(4) A defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5, subdivision (a), identifies the specific items a prevailing party may recover as a matter of right, such as filing, motion, and jury fees; costs of necessary depositions; service of process costs, and court reporter fees. Further, subdivision (b) identifies specific cost items that a prevailing party may not recover, including the fees of experts not ordered by the court; investigation expenses; and postage, telephone, and certain copying charges.

Allowable costs under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 must be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation, and must be reasonable in amount. An item not specifically allowable under Section 1033.5(a) nor prohibited under subdivision (b) may nevertheless be recoverable in the discretion of the court if they meet the above requirements (i.e., reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount). If 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. (Ladas v. California State Automotive Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-774.)

A verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services therein listed were necessarily incurred. (Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 266.) A party seeking to tax costs must provide evidence to rebut this prima facie showing. (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266, superseded by statute on other grounds in Code Civ. Proc., § 998, subd. (c)(1) [whether costs permissible from filing of complaint or from date of 998 offer].) Mere statements unsupported by facts are insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing that costs were necessarily incurred. (Jones v. Dumrichob, supra, at p. 1266.) 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. (Ibid.) 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. (Ladas v. California State Automotive Assoc., supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 774.) However, because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute, a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized. (Ibid.) Discretion is abused only when, in its exercise, the court “exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.” (Lincoln v. Schurgin, supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at p. 105.) 

Order Striking or Taxing Costs, RMOC, Item 8: GRANTED.

Item 8 of the RMOC requests $6,263.73 for “Witness fees (expert costs).”  

Plaintiff contends that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5, subdivision (b)(1), expert witness fees are not recoverable here because expert witnesses were not ordered by the Court and no legal or statutory basis exists or has been claimed by Defendants in support of the request.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5, subdivision (b) provides, in part, that items not allowable as costs, except when expressly authorized by law, include “(1) [f]ees of experts not ordered by the court.” Because the motion is unopposed, the Court was not provided with any law expressly authorizing these costs. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to tax item 8 of the RMOC is GRANTED.

Order Striking or Taxing Costs, RMOC, Item 9: GRANTED.

Item 9 of the RMOC requests $4,664.25 for “Court-ordered transcripts.”

Plaintiff contends that pursuant California Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5, subdivision (b)(5), costs relating to transcripts are not recoverable here because transcripts were not ordered by the Court.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5, subdivision (b) provides, in part, that items not allowable as costs, except when expressly authorized by law, include “(5)[t]ranscripts of court proceedings not ordered by the court.” Because the motion is unopposed, the Court was not provided with any law expressly authorizing these costs. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to tax item 9 of the RMOC is GRANTED.

Order Striking or Taxing Costs, RMOC, Item 16: GRANTED.

Item 16 of the RMOC requests $8,214.28 for “Other (Legal Research/Westlaw).”

Plaintiff contends that pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5, subdivision (b)(2), costs relating to legal research are not recoverable here.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5, subdivision (b) provides, in part, that items not allowable as costs, except when expressly authorized by law, include “(2) [i]nvestigation expenses in preparing the case for trial.” Indeed, fees for legal research are generally not recoverable. (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 776.) Because the motion is unopposed, the Court was not provided with any law to the contrary. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to tax item 16 of the RMOC is GRANTED.

                                                                       Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED.