Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 20STCV31516, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31516    Hearing Date: August 30, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTION TO TAX COSTS

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

Case:              Moises Vargas-Velasquez v. Jess One Auto Sales Inc. et al. (20STCV31516)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Moises Vargas-Velasquez’s Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Moises Vargas-Velasquez moves to tax all costs claimed by defendants Jess One Auto Sales Inc., First Trust Finance, and Western Surety Company.

“A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.” (Rule of Court 3.1700(a).) “The time provisions relating to the filing of a memorandum of costs, while not jurisdictional, are mandatory.” (Sanabria v. Embrey (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 422, 426, quoting Hydratec, Inc. v. Sun Valley 260 Orchard & Vineyard Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 924, 929.)

Here, defendants served notice of entry of dismissal on June 17, 2022. Accordingly, pursuant to the 15-day deadline set forth in Rule of Court 3.1700(a), the deadline for defendants to serve a memorandum of costs was July 5, 2022, as July 2, 2022 (the fifteenth day) fell on a Saturday and July 4, 2022 was a court holiday. (CCP § 12a(a) [deadline falling on Saturday, Sunday, or holiday extended to next court day].) Defendants untimely served and filed a memorandum of costs on July 7, 2022, which was 20 days after the date of service of written notice of entry of dismissal.

Defendants argue that the time to serve and file the memorandum of costs was extended by five days due to service by mail pursuant to CCP § 1013(a). However, the extension of time applies only to the recipient of the document served. (See Westrec Marina Management, Inc. v. Jardine Ins. Brokers Orange County, Inc. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1049 [finding extension of time under CCP § 1013(a) “applies only to the party served”].) Here, the recipient of the memorandum of costs was plaintiff. Indeed, defendants were not the parties that needed to be notified of the entry of dismissal, as they were the parties who requested the dismissal on May 25, 2022 and mailed notice of the entry of dismissal on plaintiff. Accordingly, defendants’ service of the notice of entry of dismissal by mail does not serve to extend defendants’ time to serve and file the memorandum of costs.

The Court declines to exercise any discretion under Rule of Court 3.1700(b)(3) to extend the time to file the memorandum of costs. Defendants obtained a dismissal without any motion practice. Plaintiff and defendants shall bear their own costs.

The motion is GRANTED. Defendants’ memorandum of costs filed on July 7, 2022 is STRICKEN.