Judge Colin Leis, Case Number: 19STCV14751, Date: 2023-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 19STCV14751, Date: 2023-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV14751 Hearing Date: November 21, 2023 Dept: 74

Ivonne Torres v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

Motion to Tax Costs

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from a dispute over a defective 2016 Ford Edge.

On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff Ivonne Torres (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Ford Motor Company (Defendant) and others. The complaint alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act and negligent repair.

On August 12, 2022, the parties settled.

On April 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs.

On May 11, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to tax costs.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (a), “Any buyer of consumer goods who is damaged by a failure to comply with any obligation under this chapter or under an implied or express warranty or service contract may bring an action for the recovery of damages and other legal and equitable relief.” Accordingly, the prevailing buyer in this context may recover costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the prosecution. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).)

“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.)¿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 its motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not reasonably incur the following costs:

Item 8(b) – Expert Fees - $4,714.28

Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d) permits Plaintiff to recover both costs and expenses. This includes expert witness fees. (Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 138.) Even so, Defendant argues expert fees are not recoverable unless ordered by the court or authorized by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (b)(1).) But Defendant’s reliance on Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (b)(1) is unavailing because a statute authorizes recovery of expert fees here. In its reply, Defendant argues Plaintiff never designated one expert as such and submits supplemental evidence in support. But new evidence is not permitted with a moving party’s reply. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537.) Moreover, Defendant has not persuaded the court that the work of the experts was redundant or unnecessary. The court will not tax these costs.

Item 4 – Deposition Costs - $3,085.75

Deposition costs are recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(3). Nevertheless, Defendant claims five depositions of dealership personnel were not reasonably necessary. In support, Defendant asserts each deposition served the purpose of only authenticating work orders which Defendant had already authenticated the orders in its motion for summary judgment. However, Defendant’s motion does not include the transcripts of the depositions at issue. And, in any case, Plaintiff contends the depositions also served to uncover the technicians’ respective findings about the subject vehicle, the extent to which they communicated with Plaintiff, and Defendant’s policies and procedures related to reporting repeat repairs and warranty claim submission. Last, Plaintiff has provided an itemization of the deposition costs. (Cutler Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. A.) The court will not tax these costs.

Item 13 – Other - $1,136.87

Attorney Services and Messenger Court Filings and Service - $466.30

Defendant acknowledges that the court may allow or deny these costs in its discretion, but Defendant claims the fees are neither reasonable nor necessary. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(4).) The court finds that attorney and messenger service charges for filing documents with the court, complying with document demands, and transporting exhibits to the courtroom are reasonably necessary. (See Ladas v. California Auto Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 776.) (Cutler Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. A.) Thus, the court will not tax these costs.

Court Calls - $109.00

Defendant claims that court call fees were not reasonably necessary. But the pandemic necessitated such calls on July 2, 2020, and January 6, 2021. (Cutler Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. A.) The court will not tax these costs, either.

Overnight Courier (“Fedex Inv.: Overnight”) - $96.44

Defendant notes that postage costs are not recoverable, except when expressly authorized by law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5 subd. (b)(3).) Plaintiff has not argued to the contrary. Accordingly, the court will tax these costs.

Mediation - $270.13

Plaintiff has not explained the nature of the relevant entries or persuaded the court that they were necessary. (Cutler Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. A.) Thus, the court will tax these costs.

Court Appearance Professionals - $195.00

Plaintiff has not explained the nature of the relevant entries or persuaded the court that they were necessary. (Cutler Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. A.) Thus, the court will tax these costs.

Plaintiff’s Request for Attorney Fees

Since the court has taxed some of Plaintiff’s costs, an award of attorney fees for work on the opposition is not appropriate here.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants in part and denies in part Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff’s cost award is taxed by $561.57 ($96.44 + $270.13 + $195.00).