Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV01316, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV01316    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: 74

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – CENTRAL District

Department 74

MOVING PARTIES:             Plaintiff Nancy Topa  

RESPONDING PARTY:        Defendants Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club and ACSC Management Services, Inc.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs of Defendant ACSC Management Services, Inc. and Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with these motions.

BACKGROUND

            In January 2020, Plaintiff Nancy Topa (“Plaintiff”) filed this now-dismissed action against Defendants Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Interinsurance”), ACSC Management Services Inc. (“ACSC”), and Automobile Club of Southern California. In December 2021, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s case without prejudice at her request. The court entered judgment for defendants. The judgment entitled defendants to recover their statutory costs under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032 and 1033.5. Interinsurance filed its memorandum of costs seeking $967.71, consisting of $921.67 for filing and motion fees, and $46.04 for electronic filing fees. ACSC likewise filed its memorandum of costs seeking $903.49, consisting of $861.66 in filing and motion fees, and $41.83 for electronic filing fees.

            On December 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed her motions to tax Interinsurance and ACSC’s costs.

LEGAL STANDARD

            A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs as a matter of right. (¿¿See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032, subd. (a)(4), 1032, subd. (b), 1033.5¿¿.)¿Section 1032 restricts recoverable costs to costs reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to the litigation. (¿Code Civ. Proc.,¿§§ 1033.5, subd. (c)(2), (3)¿.)¿Costs “¿merely convenient or beneficial¿” to preparing 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”].)¿ 

Initial verification of a bill of costs is prima facie evidence of the reasonable necessity of the claimed costs, and there is no requirement that copies of bills, invoices, statements or other supporting documentation be attached to the bill of costs; however, if costs have been put in issue by a motion to tax costs, the burden shifts to the party claiming costs to establish reasonableness.¿ (Jones v. Dumrichob, (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267.)¿ 

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to costs because Defendants became the “prevailing parties” by fraud and threats to Plaintiff. In the alternative, Plaintiff argues that the claimed costs are improper and should be taxed.

A.    Prevailing Party

Plaintiff argues that Defendants Interinsurance and ACSC are not the prevailing parties. Plaintiff is mistaken. The Court entered judgment in Defendants’ favor and against Plaintiff when Plaintiff dismissed the case without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. A defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered is a “prevailing party,” regardless of whether the dismissal is voluntary or involuntary. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1032(b); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606.)

 Plaintiff alleges Defendants became the “prevailing party” by fraud and threats to Plaintiff. In support, Plaintiff makes a number of contentions. Plaintiff alleges, for example, that Defendants refused to answer discovery and intentionally delayed the proceedings (Topa Decl. ¶¶ 7-14). Plaintiff also alleges that a certain “Cynthia Bell” dropped at Plaintiff’s door a “non-party subpoena” among other false documents and falsely claimed to have served Plaintiff. (Topa Decl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants’ insured staged a crash with Plaintiff’s vehicle.  (Topa Decl. ¶17.) Plaintiff additionally alleges that Defendants blocked her motion for a protective order when they lied to the Court about controlling authority. (Topa Decl. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff also argues that the Court violated Plaintiff’s due process rights by refusing to accept Plaintiff’s purportedly valid Court documents relating to Plaintiff’s preemptory challenge; allowing Defendants to not follow legal procedures; allowing Defendants to threaten Plaintiff; allowing Defendants to give false legal advice to the Court; and, “frauding” the docket. All the above notwithstanding, Plaintiff voluntarily requested that the court dismiss her case, making Defendants the prevailing parties unless, and until, the judgment in Defendants’ favor is somehow overturned. But until then, Defendants are prevailing parties entitled to recover their costs.

B.      Costs

Plaintiff argues that Interinsurance’s and ACSC’s costs should be taxed because the costs are unnecessary, unsupported, and unreasonable. Plaintiff argues that Interinsurance and ACSC provide no documentation that these costs were actually incurred.

            Initial verification of a bill of costs is prima facie evidence of the reasonable necessity of the claimed costs, and there is no requirement that copies of bills, invoices, statements or other supporting documentation be attached to the bill of costs.¿ (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267.) Notably, Defendants claim costs only for filing and motion fees. These costs are presumptively allowed under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(1). The Superior Court sets filing and motion fees, making them reasonable and necessary expenses of litigation. And the court docket and exhibits attached to Defendants’ oppositions show Defendants made the concomitant filings. Plaintiff’s argument, which does not offer any evidence suggesting the fees were not incurred, does not shift any additional evidentiary burden onto Defendants.

            Finally, Plaintiff contends that the Court should consider her financial circumstances. The law is to the contrary, however, because when the “prevailing party” requirements are met, the court has no discretion to order each party to bear his or her own costs. (Michell v. Olick (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1198; Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 129 [no discretion to consider losing party's ability to pay].) The cases Plaintiff cites in support of her argument involved cost recovery statutes different from sections 1032 and 1033.5.

Based on the foregoing, the court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Defendant Interinsurance and Defendant ACSC’s Costs.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 15, 2023

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court