Judge: Colin Leis, Case: BC613578, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC613578    Hearing Date: September 28, 2022    Dept: 3

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – NORTHEAST District

Department 3

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiffs Jane M.A. Doe and Jane A.N. Doe

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Defendant South Pasadena Unified School District

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Tax Costs Sought by Defendant South Pasadena Unified School District

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiffs Jane M.A. Doe and Jane A.N. Doe filed this action against Defendant South Pasadena Unified School District on March 11, 2016. On July 19, 2022, the court entered judgment in favor of Defendant after a jury trial. On August 3, 2022, Defendant filed a Memorandum of Costs, seeking costs totaling $93,147.20.

            Plaintiffs now move to strike or tax costs claimed by Defendant.

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

First, the court notes that there is no dispute that Defendant is the prevailing party in this action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4) [a prevailing party includes a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief].) The prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs of suit in any action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b).) Although Plaintiffs contest the entire cost bill on the basis that Plaintiffs’ case was brought to protect an  important right—the protection of children from sexual abuse, the court does not have discretion to deny Defendant’s request for costs.

Next, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant failed to provide any documentation of the claimed costs. But as noted by Defendant, “[t]here is no requirement that copies of bills, invoices, statements, or any other such documents be attached to the memorandum.” (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267.) In any event, Defendant does submit invoices and other evidence to support its claimed costs in its opposition. Defendant also submitted a supplemental costs memorandum that accounts for certain cost adjustments. Plaintiffs object to the supplemental cost memorandum and argues that additional costs are waived, but the court exercises its discretion to consider the cost adjustments (and to consider the supplemental memorandum as the operative and final memorandum) because it was filed within 45 days of service of the notice of entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(3) [“In the absence of an agreement, the court may extend the times for serving and filing the cost memorandum … for a period not to exceed 30 days.”].) 

Plaintiffs seek to reduce the filing and motion fees from $7,210.69 to $3,201.84 on the basis that the $3,201.84 amount is what is set forth in the declaration of Defendant’s counsel. (Cheung Decl., ¶ 3.) The court also notes that the amount on the verified supplemental memorandum of costs is also $3,201.84. Therefore, the court will award $3,201.84 in filing and motion fees.

Next, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant should be awarded only $447.55 for deposition costs instead of the $9,840.60 requested. The court agrees. The billing ledger submitted by Defendant does not provide sufficient information for the court to determine whether the costs associated with the depositions were necessary and reasonable.

Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that the fee increase for Defendant’s expert Larry Perondi is not reasonable. According to Defendant, Mr. Perondi’s fees for document review increased from $250 to $350 per hour and his testimony fee increased from $300 to $450 per hour since the time he was retained. The court finds that this is reasonable, and because Mr. Perondi’s invoices reflect this fee increase, the costs were actually incurred. (Cheung Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. F.)

The costs total is as follows:

Filing and motion fees: $3,201.84

Jury fees: $3,144.49

Deposition costs: $447.55

Service of process: $6,241.29

Witness fees: $2,412.90

Models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits: $717.81

Expert fees: $70,719.37

·         Undisputed fees

o   Dalenberg: $11,269

o   Perondi: $24,431

o   Thomas: $13,800

·         Disputed fees

o   McLaughlin: $15,944.37 ($15,996.40 is billed, but subtract $52.03 for meals)

·         Uncontested fees (not addressed by Plaintiffs in reply or supplemental brief)

o   Thomas: additional $700 billed on August 23, 2019 (Defendant’s Ex. G, p. 5)

o   Dupee: $1200 billed April 19, 2019 (Defendant’s Ex. G, p. 4) and $900 billed on June 9, 2022 (Defendant’s Ex. G, p. 8)

o   Stephens: $600 billed on May 3, 2019 (Defendant’s Ex. G, p. 4) and $750 billed on May 7, 2019 (Defendant’s Ex. G, p. 8)

o   Lakes: $1125 billed on June 14, 2022 (Defendant’s Ex. G, p. 8)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ motion. The court orders that Defendant is entitled to $86,885.25 for costs incurred.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  September 28, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court