Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV31753, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV31753    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Magno Escabarte’s Motion to Tax Costs

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 6, 2019, Plaintiff Magno Escabarte (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), State of California (“State”), County of Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services (“Social Services”) for negligence and premises liability.  

On October 24, 2019, the Court dismissed the City, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. On October 31, 2019, the County filed its answer. On November 5, 2019, the Court dismissed the State, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. 

On April 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint against the City and the County, adding a cause of action for dangerous condition of public property. On June 1, 2021, the County filed its answer. 

On May 13, 2022, the Court granted the County’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Trial occurred on July 12, 2022. 

On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Tax Costs to be heard on September 27, 2022. On September 13, 2022, the County filed an opposition. On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the Court tax or strike the County’s request for $14,073.52 in witness fees.

The County requests the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, a “prevailing party” is entitled to costs, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1032(b); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606.). A prevailing party includes “a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered,” and a “defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1032(a)(4).) “A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of mailing of the notice of entry of judgment…The memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700.)

The losing party may contest the costs that a prevailing party seeks. (CCP §1034(a).) The challenging party has the burden of demonstrating that those costs are unreasonable or unnecessary. (Adams v. Ford Motor Co., (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 1475, 1486; 612 South LLC v. Laconic Limited Partnership, (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1270, 1285.)  If items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. (Id.)  “Defendant's mere statements in the points and authorities accompanying its notice of motion to strike cost bill and the declaration of its counsel are insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing.”  (Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Service, Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 266.)

CRC 3.1700 requires any notice of motion to tax costs be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. Furthermore, “the party claiming costs and the party contesting costs may agree to extend the time for serving and filing the cost memorandum and a motion to strike or tax costs. This agreement must be confirmed in writing, specify the extended date for service, and be filed with the clerk. In the absence of an agreement, the court may extend the times for serving and filing the cost memorandum or the notice of motion to strike or tax costs for a period not to exceed 30 days.”

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that the County failed to timely file and serve a completed Memorandum of Costs. Plaintiff specifically identifies that on Item 8, the County did not provide the number of hours spent and the expert’s rate per hour. The County did not indicate when the subject expert witness fees were incurred—the County is not entitled to recover pre-offer costs. In its opposition, the County provided a copy of the invoice from the subject expert witnesses, providing the missing information. All work occurred after the 998 offer expired and was offered at a reasonable rate.

Plaintiff also argues that the statutory offer to compromise was not made in good faith, and thus costs should not be recoverable. Plaintiff cites multiple cases where the Court found that defendants had offered only a token or nominal amount, and then argues that “Defendant’s token offer was not designed to elicit a resolution of this action...” However, Plaintiff does not provide any information as to what the offer was or the potential damages of this case—merely stating case law is not sufficient to make this argument. Plaintiff has the burden to show these costs are unreasonable. Plaintiff has not met this burden.

Plaintiff also claims that the County’s expert witness fees are not reasonable. However, Plaintiff provides no evidence to indicate that these costs are inflated or outside the norm for experts in similar standing. Plaintiff also provides no evidence that the subject expert witnesses were not utilized in this case. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden. The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Magno Escabarte’s Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.