Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 20PSCV00249, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 20PSCV00249    Hearing Date: January 10, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS OF DEFENDANT

HOMEGOODS, INC. is GRANTED.

Background

This is a subrogation case. Plaintiff State Farm General Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm” or “Plaintiffs”) allege the following: a heavy mirror in one of Plaintiffs’ insured home fell, hitting a gas pipe that then caused an explosion. The explosion also affected the neighbor’s vehicle, another of Plaintiffs’ insureds. Plaintiffs believe that the explosion, fire and damage originated from the subject mirror and its parts which were manufactured, designed, distributed, inspected, supplied, sold, installed and/or purchased by Defendants, THE UTTERMOST CO. dba THE UTTERMOST CO. – WCDC (“Uttermost”); THE TJX COMPANIES, INC. dba HOMEGOODS (“HomeGoods” or “Defendant”), SHERYL BELL (“Bell”); and DOES 1-30, inclusive.[1]

On April 1, 2020, State Farm filed suit against Defendants for:

1. Negligence

2. Strict Products Liability

3. Breach of Implied Warranties

On August 4, 2022, HomeGoods filed a summary judgment motion (MSJ).

On August 11, 2023, the court GRANTED HomeGood’s MSJ.

On October 27, 2023, HomeGoods filed a Memorandum of Costs.

On November 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike or Tax Costs Of Defendant Homegoods, Inc.

On November 30, 2023, the parties filed a ‘Stipulation Between Plaintiffs State Farm General Insurance Company And State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, And Defendant Homegoods, Inc., Re Entry Of Judgment And Filing Of Memorandum Of Costs And Motion To Tax.’

On December 12, 2023, after taking the matter under submission, the court denied Defendant HomeGood’s Costs of Proof Sanctions.

On December 28, 2023, HomeGoods filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Or Tax Costs.

Legal Standard

Allowable costs under California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 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.) 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. (Id.) 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. (Id.) However, because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute, a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized. (Id.)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to strike two costs: (1) attorneys’ fees of $105,054.15 and (2) $191.26 in deposition fees because Duk Hoon Cha’s deposition was not taken.

A.    Attorney’s Fees

As to the first, the court denied Defendant’s request for attorney fees under CCP section 2033.420. (See Opp. p. 2:3-4[“Any attorney’s fees reflected in the Memorandum of Costs, at item number 10, would be modified by the Court’s ruling on the Motion for Costs of Proof.”].) 

Thus, the motion to tax said cost is GRANTED.

B.    Deposition Costs

As to the second, Defendant does not dispute the error. (See Opp. p. 2:5-6[“[T]his amount was added to the Memorandum of Costs in error and is withdrawn.”].)

Thus, the motion to tax the cost of the deposition of Duc Hoon Cha is GRANTED (or moot).  

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the motion thereby striking the memorandum of costs in relation to the attorney’s fees and the deposition costs of Duk Hoon Cha.