Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case 20STCV00173 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 20STCV00173, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV00173 Hearing Date: October 27, 2022 Dept: 72

MOTION TO TAX COSTS

Date: 10/27/22 (8:30 AM)

Case: Morris Matloubian v. Zahal Mansur et al. (20STCV00173)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Morris Matloubian’s Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff moves to tax costs claimed by defendants Zahal Mansur and Michal Mansur.

“If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) “Only if the costs have been put in issue via a motion to tax costs must supporting documentation be submitted.” (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267.)

As a preliminary matter, with respect to $969 in court reporter fees established by statute, plaintiff withdrew the request to tax these costs in the reply.

Plaintiff objects to $1,251 out of $3,102.91 claimed for filing and motion fees. Although plaintiff does not provide any declaration or authority indicating why these costs are not reasonable or necessary, the claimed costs for certain filing fees appear to be improper on their face. According to the Los Angeles Superior Court fee schedule, the filing fee for motions and ex parte applications are $60. (See Civil Fee Schedule, found at https://www.lacourt.org/forms/pdf/fees/fee-schedule-2020_rev1.pdf.) Based on the Court’s review of its file, the Court finds that the following reductions are proper.

· The Court Reservation Sheet attached to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed on 6/2/20 indicates that the total filing fee for the motion was $61.65, including the credit card fee. Accordingly, defendants’ claim of $123.30 for this motion shall be reduced by $61.65.

· The Court Reservation Sheet attached to the Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas filed on 4/13/21 indicates that the total filing fee for the motion was $61.65, including the credit card fee. Accordingly, defendants’ claim of $184.95 for this motion shall be reduced by $123.30.

· The filing fee for the Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time for Defendants to Comply with the Court’s July 14, 2021 Order is $60.00. Accordingly, defendants’ claim of $78.45 for the ex parte application shall be reduced by $18.45.

· Defendants claim a total of $1,047.50 in filing fees for motions that were never filed. While a prevailing party may recover filing fees under CCP § 1033.5(a)(1), “[a]llowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” (CCP § 1033.5(c)(2).) Filing fees for motions that were never filed are not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. The costs for motion reservation fees shall be reduced by $1,047.50.

Plaintiff objects to electronic filing and service charges, arguing that the Court charges less than $5 per filing for electronic filing and that defendants could have emailed plaintiff directly instead of paying a third-party provider to perform the electronic service. The fees for electronic filing and service, as reflected in the memorandum of costs, appear proper on their face. Plaintiff does not sufficiently demonstrate why the costs were not reasonable or necessary. Plaintiff does not propose the amount that should be taxed, nor does plaintiff provide the number of filings and the exact electronic filing charge to serve as a basis for calculating a reduction in costs. The electronic filing and service fees shall stand.

Plaintiff objects to $3,240.19 in fees claimed for courtesy copies. While courtesy copies are required pursuant to the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil, the amount of defendants’ claim is unreasonable on its face. Defendants did not submit any documentation, such as invoices, in support of their costs. (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1265, quoting Bach v. County of Butte (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 294, 308 [“Once costs claimed in the memorandum are challenged via a motion to tax, ‘[d]ocumentation must be submitted’ to sustain the burden”].) Accordingly, defendants’ costs shall be reduced in the amount of $3,240.19.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants Zahal Mansur and Michal Mansur’s claim of $8,365.52 in costs is taxed in the amount of $4,491.09, such that the Mansur defendants shall be entitled to recover total costs of $3,874.43.