Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV23330, Date: 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV23330    Hearing Date: October 19, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Abel Adrian Gonzalez Martin’s Motion to Tax Costs

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

BACKGROUND

On June 19, 2020, Plaintiff Abel Adrian Gonzalez Martin (“Plaintiff’) filed this action against Defendants Jonas Tahlin (“Tahlin”), Absolut Elyx Spirits USA, LLC (“AES”) and Pernod Ricard USA (“PR”) for general negligence and premises liability. On October 23, 2020, Plaintiff amended his complaint to include Defendants Barlingual, LLC (“Barlingual”), Global 360 Protective Services (“Global 360”), Legacy Marketing Partners, LLC (“LMP”) and Paul Oakenfold (“Oakenfold”).

On October 15, 2020, Tahlin, AES, and PR filed their answer. They also filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Barlingual, Global 360, LMP and Oakenfold for implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, comparative negligence and contribution, negligence, and declaratory relief. 

On November 19, 2020, LMP filed an answer to both the complaint and Cross-Complaint. It also filed a Cross-Complaint against Tahlin, Barlingual, Global 360, and Oakenfold for indemnity, equitable apportionment, and declaratory relief. On January 4, LMP filed its first amended answer to the complaint. On December 28, 2020, Tahlin filed an answer to LMP’s Cross-Complaint. On May 6, 2021, Barlingual filed its answer to LMP’s Cross-Complaint.

On December 7, 2020, Global 360 filed its answer to the complaint. Global 360 filed its answer to Tahlin’s Cross-Complaint on January 12, 2021, and filed a Cross-Complaint of its own against Tahlin, AES, and PR. On January 14, 2021, Global 360 answered LMP’s Cross-Complaint and filed a Cross-Complaint against LMP. 

Tahlin, AES, and PR filed their answer to Global 360’s Cross-Complaint on January 19, 2021. 

On May 3, 2021, Barlingual filed its answer to the complaint, and a Cross-Complaint against SOES 1 through 50. 

On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Tax Costs to be heard on July 13, 2022. On June 29, 2022, Barlingual filed an opposition. The Court continued the motion to September 9, 2022, and then again to October 19, 2022.

Trial is currently set for February 14, 2023. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the Court tax or reduce by $3,391.46 costs sought by Barlingual.

Defendant 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 Barlingual should not recover for excessive and unreasonable costs for service of process, specifically identifying $1,055.55 in service of process costs. Plaintiff claims that Barlingual failed to meet its burden of establishing necessity and reasonableness as it did not detail how and what was served. Plaintiff does not identify how any of these costs are excessive or provide evidence that they are above market rate. As Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that these costs are unreasonable, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has met his burden.

Plaintiff also argues that Barlingual should not recover for filing or service of documents or remote appearances that were not reasonably necessary for litigation, specifically identifying $2,335.91 in telephonic court appearance fees and court reservations. Plaintiff specifically notes that Barlingual does not identify it was participating or merely “observing” the hearing. Barlingual was entitled, as a party to the litigation, attend all hearings in the action, even if not personally involved in the motion to be heard. As such, the Court does not find Plaintiff has met his burden as to this issue either.

Based on the above analysis, the Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Abel Adrian Gonzalez Martin’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.