Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 20STCV07210, Date: 2023-09-26 Tentative Ruling




Case Number: 20STCV07210    Hearing Date: September 26, 2023    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Amco Insurance Company vs. Southern California Gas Co., et. al., Case No. 20STCV07210

 

Tentative Ruling re:  Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs

 

Plaintiff Amco Insurance Company (Plaintiff) moves to tax the Memorandum of Costs filed by Defendant Southern California Gas Company (Defendant). The Court taxes the Memorandum of Costs in the amount of $468.65.

 

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.)

Defendant’s August 10, 2023 Memorandum of Costs seeks recovery of costs in the amount of $26,358.66. Plaintiff moves to tax the following items and amounts, totaling $14,113.97:

·         Deposition costs: $10,423.06

·         Service of Process: $2,368.00

·         Electronic filing or service fees: $1,034.06

·         Subpoena fees: $288.85

Deposition costs

Expressly allowable costs include those for “[t]aking, video recording, and transcribing necessary depositions, including an original and one copy of those taken by the claimant and one copy of depositions taken by the party against whom costs are allowed.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, subd. (a)(3)(A).)

Defendant’s Memorandum seeks to recover costs of $10,423.06 for the taking of nine depositions.

Plaintiff argues that costs for the depositions of Joshua Brennan, Steven Brown, and Christopher Leffler; Rolando Aguilera; Ronald Greene; Barry Cramer should be taxed because they were not taken by Defendant. (Bauerle Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant concedes that it did not take those depositions but provides invoices showing that he paid $3,270.35 to obtain a copy of the transcripts.  This is allowable. The costs for the five depositions taken by Defendant (Erwin Be; Idayanti Be; Michael Koster; Jason Johnson; Dan Bonelli) amount to $7,152.71.

The Court declines to tax the deposition costs.

Service of Process costs

            The Memorandum of Costs seeks recovery of $2,368 in costs for Service of Process. Specifically, Plaintiff challenges the costs of $589.00 and $468.65 requested for service on Kevin Paulson at two addresses, arguing that Defendant did not pursue the depositions or call Paulson at trial. The motion is denied as to the initial service fee of $589.00. “[T]he Code of Civil Procedure does not limit the recovery of service of process fees to witnesses used at trial,” and Plaintiff has not shown that Paulson was not “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.” (Doe v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 675, 694.) Defendant does not oppose the motion as to the $468.65 in fees for serving Kevin Paulson at his second address, and so those costs are taxed.

Electronic filing or service fees

            Defendant seeks to recover $1,034.06 in fees for electronic filing or service. (Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5, subd. (a)(1).)  Plaintiff argues that it is unclear whether these fees overlap with the fees listed under “Service of Process.” The requested fees are documented in the declaration of Defendant’s counsel and appear proper; accordingly, the motion is denied as to these costs. (Williams Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. E.)

Subpoena fees

            Finally, Defendant requests recovery of “Subpoena Fees” in the amount of $288.85. Defendant states that these fees were incurred to subpoena records of the Los Angeles Fire Department and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department related to arson investigations of the subject fire. (Williams Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. F.) The fees are substantiated by the declaration of Defendant’s counsel and appear reasonably necessary, and so the Court declines to strike them.

            In sum, the Court taxes Defendant’s memorandum of costs in the total of $468.65.