Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV39137, Date: 2024-11-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39137    Hearing Date: November 26, 2024    Dept: 74

Barahona et al. v. Kia America, Inc.

Defendant KIA America, Inc’s Motion to Strike or Tax Costs

BACKGROUND 

            Plaintiffs Gabriel Barahona and Bertha Barahona (Plaintiffs) filed a breach of contract and warranty claim against defendant Kia America, Inc (Defendant) under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

            On September 20, 2024, the Jury reached a verdict for the Plaintiffs.

            On October 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Memorandum of Costs.

            On October 22, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to strike or 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¿¿.)  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 of the case.  (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

            Defendant seeks to tax $360.71 in filing fees.  Defendant claims that several reservations for hearings were unnecessary and duplicative but provides no evidence they were duplicative.  (See Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 3 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266 (“burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary.)  Additionally, Plaintiffs submit that Plaintiffs’ motions to compel were granted.  (Crandall Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4.)  The filing fees seem proper on their face and Defendant submits no evidence to the contrary. Thus, the court does not tax those fees.

            Defendant seeks to strike or tax $3,844.53 in Jury Fees.  Plaintiffs agree to tax $2,085.45 in jury fees.

            Defendant seeks to tax $4,200.45 for depositions, which include videotaping and purportedly unnecessary duplication of transcripts.  Plaintiff responds that the depositions were not videotaped and that Plaintiff obtained transcripts to be used to impeach witnesses at trial or to read from transcripts for unavailable witnesses.  Defendant additionally claims that some witnesses were not “essential” to depose but does not refute Plaintiff’s reasons for those depositions. (Crandall Decl., ¶ 5-6.) The court does not tax those costs.

            Defendant seeks to tax $500.00 in service of process costs.  Defendant alleges Plaintiffs served the same person without justification.  Plaintiff provides the justification for multiple service attempts because Defendant refused to accept service on behalf of the witnesses and the trial was continued. The court finds those costs reasonable and recoverable and does not tax them. 

            Defendant seeks to strike or tax $10,543.83 in expert witness fees.  Defendant claims that (1) Plaintiffs’ expert was from Sonoma County, requiring additional travel costs and (2) Plaintiffs unnecessarily inspected the vehicle twice. Defendant cites no authority that Plaintiff must choose a local expert, or that Plaintiffs are not entitled to the travel costs of the expert of their choosing.  Additionally, Plaintiffs’ expert attended Plaintiffs’ vehicle inspection and had an employee attend Defendant’s vehicle inspection because Plaintiffs’ expert was unavailable.  (Crandall Decl., ¶¶ 10, 11.)  Plaintiffs retained only one expert.  (Crandall Decl., ¶ 9.)  The court finds Plaintiffs’ expert witness fees reasonable and recoverable and does not tax those costs.

            Defendant seeks to strike or tax $14,148.92 in court reporter fees.  Defendant alleges that the court reporter fees exceed what was reasonably required and that Plaintiffs did not adhere to unspecified “Court Minute Orders.”  Defendant attempts to use the Court’s court reporters fee schedule to indicate that Plaintiffs’ fees are inflated.  Plaintiff used an independent court reporter service because the Court’s official court reporters were unavailable.  Defendant does not submit evidence that Plaintiffs’ independent court reporter’s charges were unreasonable.  The court does not tax those costs.

            Defendant seeks to strike $5,679.01 for models, enlargements, and photocopies.  Defendant states it is unclear how Plaintiffs’ costs for 3 binders of exhibits and a flash drive grew to $5,679.01 and claims that Plaintiffs failed to justify the cost. Plaintiffs provide the invoices for the 4 binders.  (Memo. of Costs, Ex. “F.)  The court finds this item reasonable and the costs recoverable.

            Defendant seeks to strike or tax $10,000.00 in interpreter fees.  Defendant opposed Plaintiffs’ hiring of two interpreters.  Hiring two interpreters is reasonable because of the intensity of interpretating.  (Crandall Decl., ¶ 8.)  The court finds this item reasonable and the costs recoverable.

            Defendant seeks to strike or tax $1,628.51 in “other” costs. Defendant challenges costs for “attorney services, messengers and/or ‘court appearance professionals’” and travel expenses.  Plaintiffs properly identify that Civil Code section 1794(d) controls the reasonableness of fees.  Under Song-Beverly, the prevailing plaintiff is entitled to recover costs and expenses beyond the statute enumerating items allowable as costs.  (Smalley v. Subaru of America, Inc (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 450, 457; Warren v. Kia Motors America, Inc (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 42-43.)  The court finds Plaintiffs’ counsel’s travel charges reasonable, but not charges for food.  Regardless of whether Plaintiff’s counsel was engaging in litigation or not, counsel still needed to eat.  (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 775-76.)  The Court taxes $379.27 for food related expenses.  Defendant argues that additional overhead costs are not recoverable as “out-of-pocket” expenses but does not provide authority that supports a finding that expenses that would not have been incurred but for the litigation are not recoverable.  Therefore, the court finds the other expenses recoverable. 

CONCLUSION

             The court grants in part and denies in part Defendant’s motion.  Plaintiffs’ costs award is taxed by $2,138.35.