Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV17442, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17442    Hearing Date: October 6, 2023    Dept: 74

Chicago Title Insurance Company v. Neil Stiller, et al.

Motion to Tax Costs

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

TENTATIVE RULING

            The court grants this motion to tax costs in part.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a dispute over real property.

            On May 7, 2020, Plaintiff Chicago Title Insurance Company (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Neil and Kimberly Stiller (Defendants).

            On July 17, 2023, the court entered a notice of entry of judgment. Defendants were the prevailing party.

            On July 27, 2023, Defendants filed a memorandum of costs.

            On August 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to tax costs.

LEGAL STANDARD

            A 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 its motion, Plaintiff argues that many of the items in Defendants’ memorandum of costs lack evidentiary support or are suspect. In opposition, Defendants provided evidentiary support and justification for each item at issue. Plaintiff has conceded in its reply that Defendants provided sufficient evidence and support for some of the requests. Accordingly, the court will not address the items that are no longer in dispute. Be that as it may, Plaintiff still challenges the following costs:

            $100.20 – Service of Process for Deposition of Fidelity National Law Group

            Plaintiff claims there is no documentary proof that Defendants incurred this cost. However, Defendants have provided the invoice. (Flores Decl.; Ex. E.) Plaintiff further notes that personal service of Plaintiff’s counsel was not necessary. In opposition, Defendants concede that the parties agrees that Defendants would serve attorney Karen Ragland instead of individual third-party witnesses. Service by email would have sufficed. Accordingly, the court will tax this cost.

            $306.00 – Courtesy Copy of Opposition to MSJ

            Plaintiff argues there is no documentary proof that Defendants incurred this cost and Defendants have not explained why a courtesy copy or messenger were necessary. But Defendants have provided the invoice. (Flores Decl.; Ex. F.) Moreover, it is the court’s understanding that a previous order from Department 74 required courtesy copies. Accordingly, the court will not tax this cost.

            $1,050.46 – 3 Payments for Demurrer Filing

            Plaintiff points out that Defendants have not explained why Defendants required three payments for the filing of a demurrer. However, Defendants have provided client invoices accounting for all three payments. (Flores Decl., Ex. J; Ex. K; Ex. L.) The court will not tax this cost.

            $226.00 – Star Krieg (On Call Letter)

            Plaintiff argues there is no documentary proof that Defendants incurred this cost. Plaintiff further argues Defendants have not explained why messengers were necessary. But Defendants have provided documentary proof. (Flores Decl., Ex. N.) Moreover, Defendants have explained that personal service was necessary because witnesses often did not respond to emails and phone calls. The court will not tax this cost.

            $71.00 – Lisa Allen (On Call Letter)

            Plaintiff argues there is no documentary proof that Defendants incurred this cost. Plaintiff further argues Defendants have not explained why messengers were necessary. But Defendants have provided documentary proof. (Flores Decl., Ex. N.) Moreover, Defendants have explained that personal service was necessary because witnesses often did not respond to emails and phone calls. The court will not tax this cost.

            $150.00 – William Thomas (On Call Letter)

            Plaintiff argues there is no documentary proof that Defendants incurred this cost. Plaintiff further argues Defendants have not explained why messengers were necessary. But Defendants have provided documentary proof. (Flores Decl., Ex. N.) Moreover, Defendants have explained that personal service was necessary because witnesses often did not respond to emails and phone calls. The court will not tax this cost.

            $138.00 – William Slifkin (On Call Letter)

            Plaintiff argues there is no documentary proof that Defendants incurred this cost. Plaintiff further argues Defendants have not explained why messengers were necessary. But Defendants have provided documentary proof. (Flores Decl., Ex. N.) Moreover, Defendants have explained that personal service was necessary because witnesses often did not respond to emails and phone calls. The court will not tax this cost.

            $36.50 – John Gamm (On Call Letter)

            Plaintiff argues there is no documentary proof that Defendants incurred this cost. Plaintiff further argues Defendants have not explained why messengers were necessary. But Defendants have provided documentary proof. (Flores Decl., Ex. N.) Moreover, Defendants have explained that personal service was necessary because witnesses often did not respond to emails and phone calls. The court will not tax this cost.

            $36.50 – Daniel Leonhardt (On Call Letter)

            Plaintiff argues there is no documentary proof that Defendants incurred this cost. Plaintiff further argues Defendants have not explained why messengers were necessary. But Defendants have provided documentary proof. (Flores Decl., Ex. N.) Moreover, Defendants have explained that personal service was necessary because witnesses often did not respond to emails and phone calls. The court will not tax this cost.

            $176.75 – Star Kreig (Second On Call Letter)

            Plaintiff argues there is no documentary proof that Defendants incurred this cost. Plaintiff further argues Defendants have not explained why messengers were necessary. But Defendants have provided documentary proof. (Flores Decl., Ex. N.) Moreover, Defendants have explained that personal service was necessary because witnesses often did not respond to emails and phone calls. Lastly, Defendants sent this second letter because the trial date was moved on short notice. The court will not tax this cost.

            $300.50 – Lisa Allen (Second On Call Letter)

            Plaintiff argues there is no documentary proof that Defendants incurred this cost. Plaintiff further argues Defendants have not explained why messengers were necessary. But Defendants have provided documentary proof. (Flores Decl., Ex. N.) Moreover, Defendants have explained that personal service was necessary because witnesses often did not respond to emails and phone calls. Lastly, Defendants sent this second letter because the trial date was moved on short notice. The court will not tax this cost.

            $682.75 – Richard Rule (Civil Subpoena)

            Plaintiff claims there is no documentary proof that Defendants incurred this cost. But Defendants have furnished such proof. (Flores Decl., Ex. O.) The court will not tax this cost.

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion in part. The court will tax $100.20 from Defendants’ memorandum of costs.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.