Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 21STCV02110, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02110    Hearing Date: January 5, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.  Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.  If notice of intention to appear is not given and the parties do not appear, the Court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

Motion To Tax Costs

Discussion

The Court granted Defendant Showcase Facility Solutions, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that, because Plaintiff did not recover any relief against Defendant, Defendant is the prevailing party entitled to recover costs as of right. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 1032(a)(4) & (b).) 

            Plaintiff moves to tax Defendant’s memorandum of costs.

Plaintiff argues: 

In this instance, all of the costs sought by Defendants are not allowable as Plaintiff already filed his Notice of Appeal on September 9, 2022, way before Defendant filed its Memorandum of Costs on September 20, 2022.  

     (Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Page 4:25-27.) 

            Plaintiff offers no authority or analysis as to why this prohibits Defendant from recovering costs. This ground is without merit. 

            Plaintiff also argues that he deposition cost of $2,198.70 should not be allowed since Plaintiff’s deposition was unnecessary given that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted based on its address.

            The following deposition costs are allowable as costs pursuant to CCP § 1033.5(a)(3)(A): “Taking, 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.”

            The fact that the deposition may not have served as a basis for the Court granting summary judgment goes not render the taking of the deposition unnecessary. (Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 57.) Such costs are recoverable if the Court finds the taking of the deposition was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (Id.; Civ. Proc. Code, § 1033.5(c)(2).) Here, the Court finds that the taking of Plaintiff’s deposition was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation for the reasons set forth in the Opposition. As such, Defendants are entitled to recover such costs. 

            Plaintiff did not assert the Settlement Agreement as a basis for taxing costs in the moving papers and it will not be considered for the first time in the Reply. “The salutary rule is that points raised in a reply brief for the first time will not be considered unless good cause is shown for the failure to present them before. (Citations omitted.)” (Balboa Ins. Co. v. Aguirre (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1010.) 

            Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs is DENIED in its entirety.