Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 19STCV20537, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV20537 Hearing Date: July 25, 2022 Dept: 30
Dept. 30
Calendar No.
Quraishi vs. Keyes
Lexus, et. al., Case No.
19STCV20537
Tentative Ruling re:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs
Plaintiff Nissar Quraishi (Plaintiff)
moves to tax items from the Memorandum of Costs filed by Defendant Toyota Motor
Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (Toyota). The Court taxes the costs in the amount of $1,995.62.
A prevailing party in litigation
may recover costs, including but not limited to filing fees. (Code of Civ.
Proc. §1033.5, subd. (a)(1).) Under Code
of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(2), allowable costs are only
recoverable if they are “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the
litigation.” Even mandatory costs, when incurred unnecessarily, are subject to
section 1033, subdivision (c)(2). (Perko’s
Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 245.)
The memorandum of cost is a
verified statement by the party, attorney, or agent that the costs are correct
and were necessarily incurred in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1).)
If the items on a verified cost bill appear proper charges, they are prima
facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed therein were
necessarily occurred. (Oak Grove School
Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 698 (Oak Grove).)
“The trial court’s first determination is whether the statute expressly allows
the particular item and whether it appears proper on its face; if so, the
burden is on the objecting party to show the costs to be unnecessary or
unreasonable.” (Foothill-DeAnza Community
College Dist. v. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 29 (Foothill-DeAnza).) The burden of showing
that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the party
challenging the costs. (Wilson v. Nichols
(1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 678, 682-683 (Wilson).)
Where the items are properly
objected to, they are put at issue, and the burden of proof is on the party
claiming them as costs. (Oak Grove, supra,
217 Cal.App.2d at p. 698.) In other words, the burden is initially on the
objecting party to show that the costs are not proper on their face. Then, the
burden shifts to the moving party to justify its costs and expenses. If the
costs are not facially proper, that is, the costs are not expressly allowed
under a statute, then the moving party must justify the requests for the
expenses.
Under section 1033.5, “[a]n item
not specifically allowable under subdivision (a) nor prohibited under
subdivision (b) may nevertheless be recoverable in the discretion of the court
if ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely
convenient or beneficial to its preparation.’” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761,
774 (Ladas).)
Toyota’s Memorandum of Costs, filed
May 26, 2022, lists costs in the amount of $3,499.01. Plaintiff seeks to tax
the following items, totaling $2,522.92:
1.
Hearing reservation fees ($276.60 total)
2.
Expert fees ($993.00)
3.
Reporter fees ($944.00 total)
4.
Courier charges ($309.32 total)
Hearing reservation fees
Plaintiff
seeks to strike costs claimed by Toyota for four hearing reservations incurred
January 2021, May 2021, February 2022, and May 2022. Filing and motion fees are
expressly allowable as costs. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, subd. (a)(1).)
Toyota has attached invoices
confirming these costs. (Opposition, Ex. A.) The reservation fees incurred
January and May 2021 were for Post-Arbitration Status Conferences and hearings
on Toyota’s demurrer, which were later continued. The May 2022 reservation fees
were also incurred for the continued hearing on Toyota’s demurrer. The items
appear proper charges and so Toyota’s Memorandum constitutes prima facie
evidence that these costs were necessarily incurred. (Oak Grove, supra,
217 Cal.App.2d at 698.) Plaintiff has not shown that these reservation fees
were improper or unreasonable.
However, while Toyota claims
reservation fees of $123.30 for a hearing on February 22, 2022, no hearing took
place that date. Toyota has not explained why these fees were incurred. Accordingly,
the fees are taxed.
The motion is granted with respect
to the February 2022 hearing reservation fees, in the amount of $123.30.
Expert fees
Toyota concedes
that the Court should tax the claimed expert fees of $993.00. Accordingly, the
motion to tax is granted as to these fees.
Reporter fees
Plaintiff
seeks to strike $994.00 in court reporter fees claimed by Defendant for
hearings on October 15, 2019 and August 13, 2021. The first charge was related
to the hearing on Defendant Keylex, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. Toyota
filed a limited opposition, opposing the motion to the extent that it would
apply to Plaintiff’s claims against Toyota. Given this limited opposition, the
Court finds that the associated reporter costs were reasonably necessary.
The second charge was related to a
Case Management Conference and a hearing on Toyota’s Demurrer with Motion to
Strike. The Court had previously stayed the case as to Toyota pending the resolution
of the other Defendants’ arbitration. Toyota’s demurrer had already been
continued on multiple occasions pending the arbitration, on July 20, 2020,
January 14, 2021, and May 13, 2021. As the arbitration was still ongoing as of
the date of hearing on August 13, 2021, Defendant should have been aware that
the hearing on the demurrer would not take place and that the court reporter
retained for this date was unnecessary.
Accordingly,
the motion to tax is granted as to the court reporter fees incurred in
connection with the August 13, 2021 hearing, in the amount of $570.
Courier charges
Finally,
Plaintiff seeks to strike various courier charges totaling $309.32, claimed by
Toyota for deliveries of courtesy copies.
“Costs
for courier or messenger fees are not specifically enumerated as
allowable costs in Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a),
neither are they prohibited in subdivision (b). Thus, messenger fees may be recoverable in the trial court's
discretion if ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.’” (Foothill-De
Anza Community College Dist. v. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 30.)
Toyota has
not explained the purpose of these deliveries and courier fees, or how they
were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. Accordingly, the
motion to tax is granted as to the courier charges.
In sum, the
Court strikes the hearing reservation fees in the amount of $123.30, expert
fees in the amount of $993, reporter fees in the amount of $570, and courier
charges in the amount of $309.32. The struck costs total $1,995.62. Toyota is
entitled to recover the remaining costs in the amount of $1,453.39.