Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 18STCL13165, Date: 2024-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCL13165    Hearing Date: February 9, 2024    Dept: 74

Melynda Bryan, et al. v. Chad Jeremy Cassady, et al.

Motion to Tax Costs

The court considered the moving papers and Defendant’s notice of non-opposition.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a dispute over a used motorhome.

            On October 22, 2018, Plaintiffs Melynda Bryan and Errick Bryan (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Defendant Chad Jeremy Cassady (Defendant).

            On June 4, 2021, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Co-Defendant Tiffanie Cassady (Co-Defendant).

            On November 1, 2022, the court granted Co-Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons.

            On September 18, 2023, the court entered judgment in favor of Defendant.

            On October 2, 2023, Defendant filed a memorandum of costs.

            On October 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this motion to tax Defendant’s costs.

LEGAL STANDARD

            The prevailing party is entitled to recover costs, including attorneys’ fees, as a matter of right, except as otherwise expressly provided by statute. (¿¿See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032, subd. (a)(4), 1032, subd. (b), 1033.5¿¿.)¿Costs recoverable under¿¿section 1032¿¿are restricted to those that are both reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (¿Code Civ. Proc.,¿§§ 1033.5, subd. (c)(2), (3)¿.)¿Costs “¿merely convenient or beneficial¿” to the preparation of a case are disallowed. (¿Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2)¿.) 

            “¿A ‘verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of [the] propriety’ of the items listed on it, and the burden is on the party challenging these costs to demonstrate that they were not reasonable or necessary.¿” (¿¿Adams v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1486-1487 [italics and brackets omitted]¿¿.)¿Costs otherwise allowable as a matter of right may be disallowed if the court determines they were not reasonably necessary, and the court has power to reduce the amount of any cost item to an amount that is reasonable. (See Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises¿(1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 245 [finding that¿“the intent and effect of section 1033.5, subdivision¿(c)(2) is to authorize a trial court to disallow recovery of costs, including filing fees, when it determines the costs were incurred unnecessarily”].)¿

DISCUSSION 

            In support of their motion to tax costs, Plaintiffs contend Defendant improperly seeks to recover costs incurred by Co-Defendant. The costs include $446.96 in filing fees for Co-Defendant’s successful motion to quash service of summons and $14.52 in related electronic filing fees. Defendant, for his part, does not oppose the motion.

CONCLUSION 

The court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to tax costs. The court will tax $461.48 from Defendant’s memorandum of costs.