Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 19STCV02964, Date: 2024-06-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV02964    Hearing Date: June 17, 2024    Dept: 74

Vasile Properties Airport Plaza LLC v. FAA Beverly Hills, Inc.

Plaintiff Charles Vasile’s Motion to Tax Costs.

BACKGROUND 

            The court entered judgment  on the special verdict for Defendant FAA Beverly Hills Inc. dba Beverly Hills BMW on February 9, 2024.  On February 26, 2024, Defendant filed its Memorandum of Costs, seeking to recover $31,048.03 in costs. On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff Charles Vasile (“Plaintiff”) filed his motion to tax costs.

            All evidentiary objections are preserved.

            The court exercises its discretion to disregard any defect in timeliness of Plaintiff’s service of its motion because the short delay (if any) was de minimis and non-prejudicial.

Plaintiff seeks to tax the following categories: (1) item 1 in the amount of $2,315; (2) item 5 in the amount of $1,089.50; (3) item 11 in the amount of $225.85, and (4) item 14 in its entirety, i.e. $2,160.30.

With regard to item 1, Plaintiff seeks to tax costs associated with the filing fees of motions that Defendant had filed that were denied or withdrawn, which amounts to $2,315. (Motion at pp. 2-3.) However, the recovery of filing fees are generally recoverable. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a)(1).) While Plaintiff asserts that many of Defendant’s motions were withdrawn and some were denied, this does not preclude recovery for these costs because Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant pursued these motions incompetently or in bad faith. (City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1303.) Thus, Plaintiff has not met his burden in showing that they were not reasonable or necessary.  (Ladas v. California State Automotive Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-774.) Therefore, the court declines to tax item 1 in the amount requested.

As to item 5, Plaintiff asserts that it was unnecessary for Defendant to spend $1,089.50 in unsuccessfully attempting to serve witness Victor Mora with trial subpoenas because Mr. Mora’s deposition testimony was ultimately admitted into trial. (Motion at pp. 3-4.) The court agrees. Even though Defendant argues that it was obligated to serve Mr. Mora with a trial subpoena pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.620(c)(2)(E), Defendant’s decision to attempt to serve Mr. Mora eleven times with a trial subpoena is excessive and was not reasonable. Instead, the court finds that the trial subpoenas that Defendant had attempted to serve on Mr. Mora on February 6, 2023, May 23, 2023, and June 28, 2023 were reasonable. Thus, item 5 of Defendant’s Memorandum of Costs is taxed in the amount of $805.50.

With regard to item 11, Plaintiff seeks to tax this category in the amount of $225.85 because the copying expense includes documents other than exhibits found within the trial binders and some exhibits were not presented to the jury. (Motion at pg. 4.) However, the preparation of the trial binders are determined to be reasonable and necessary for the “conduct of litigation,” regardless of whether they were presented before the jury. (Heppler v. J.M. Peters Co.¿(1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1265, 1298–1299.) Additionally, whether an exhibit is used at trial is not dispositive; the proper standard is whether the exhibits “were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact.” (County of Riverside v. City of Murrieta (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 616, 629.) Thus, the court declines to tax item 11.

Last, Plaintiff seeks to tax item 14 in its entirety because e-filing fees in the amount of $2,160.30 are excessive. (Motion at pg. 5.) This argument is not persuasive. In Los Angeles County, electronic filing has been mandated for Non-Complex Unlimited Civil cases where litigants are represented by counsel since January 2, 2019. (See First Amended General Order filed May 3, 2019; see also CRC, rule 2.253(b.) Also, while the individual invoices were not included with the Memorandum of Costs, verification of the memorandum of costs by the prevailing party’s attorney establishes a prima facie showing that the claimed costs are proper. (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266.) To overcome this prima facie showing, the objecting party must introduce evidence to support its claim that the costs are not reasonably necessary. (Id. at pp. 1267-1268.) Because the memorandum has been verified by Defendant’s attorney, the claimed costs are proper.

Accordingly, the motion to tax is granted in part and Defendant’s costs are taxed in the amount of $805.50.

CONCLUSION 

The court grants in part Plaintiff Charles Vasile’s motion to tax costs in the amount of $805.50.  Consequently, Defendant is entitled to recover $30,242.53 in costs.

Plaintiff shall give notice.