Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 23STCV02073, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02073    Hearing Date: October 19, 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.  Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a), 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.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants, including her husband whom she is divorcing and his attorney, have conspired to defame, stalk, eavesdrop and threaten/harass Plaintiff.

Plaintiff moves to tax the memorandum of costs filed by Defendants Jelisaveta Ellie Sweeney and Law Offices of J. Ellie Sweeney.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Neda Heidari’s motion to tax costs is DENIED as to filing and motion fees, GRANTED IN PART as to electronic filing or service costs in the amount of $196.32, and GRANTED as to “Other” costs in the amount of $33.80.

ANALYSIS

Motion To Tax Costs

Plaintiff moves to tax the memorandum of costs filed by Defendants Jelisaveta Ellie Sweeney and Law Offices of J. Ellie Sweeney as to the following categories:

1.         Filing and motion fees

Plaintiff argues that there has been no showing that the actual first appearance fees were actually paid for both Defendants, so it must be fully taxed.

Defendants represent that a $435 first appearance fee was paid as to each Defendant, and a $61.65 motion reservation fee was paid for the anti-SLAPP motion. (Bubion Decl,. ¶ 5.) As Defendants would not have been allowed to appear in this action, nor to file their special motion to strike without having paid these fees, the Court accepts counsel’s representation that they were actually paid.

The request to tax filing and motion fees is DENIED in its entirety.

2.         Service of Process (Actually electronic filing or service).

Plaintiff argues that $407.62 electronic filing or service is unreasonable for serving a SLAPP motion.

Defendants argues that there was a computational error and the actual costs were $211.30, as enumerated in the Bubion Decl., ¶ 7 as follows:

7. These fees included the following charges for Express Networks and One Legal

E-Filing service providers: (1) One Legal E-Filing Charge for a Declaration of Demurring Party of $11.99; (2) One Legal E-Filing Charge for the Special Motion to Strike of $11.99; (3) One Legal E-Filing Charge for the Memorandum of Costs of $16.32; (4) One Legal E-Filing Charge the Notice of Ruling of $16.32; (5) Express Network E-Filing Charge of $43.50; (6) Express Network E-Filing Charge of $43.50; and (7) Express Network E-Filing Charge for the Reply Brief on the Special Motion to Strike of $84.00. The filing fee was charged by One Legal and Express Networks, recognized E-Filing services.

These costs are expressly permitted under Civ. Proc. Code, § 1033.5(a)(14): “Fees for the electronic filing or service of documents through an electronic filing service provider if a court requires or orders electronic filing or service of documents.”

The Court will allow these costs as and tax the erroneous amount of $196.32.

The request to tax electronic filing or service costs is GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $196.32.

3.         Other 

Plaintiff argues that the purchase of court documents from the LA Superior Court website was incurred for convenience.

Defendants argue:

8. It was necessary for the Defendants to download various court filings from the

LASC Court website for this case. These documents included: (1) Proofs of Service for the Defendants for $4.00; (2) Plaintiffs Opposition to the Special Motion to Strike for $9.40; (3) the Declaration of Neda Heidari in Opposition to the Special Motion for $7.40; and (4) the Minute Order sustaining the Special Motion to Strike for $13.00. The fees were incurred and paid by Defendants. The charges are set by Los Angeles Superior Court, and therefore the cost is presumptively reasonable. 

     (Bubion Decl., ¶ 8.)

            However, all of these documents should have been served upon Defendants’ counsel. These costs will be disallowed as merely convenient or beneficial to the preparation of litigation, rather than reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 1033.5(c)(2).)

            The motion to tax “Other” costs is GRANTED in the amount of $33.80.