Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 19STCV42416, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV42416    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On November 25, 2019, Plaintiff Rossy Ardon filed this lemon law action against Defendant Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Act. The lawsuit stems from Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2018 Toyota Highlander. On January 27, 2023, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff for breach of implied warranty, awarding $45,514.15 in damages.

            Although Plaintiff prevailed at trial, Defendant seeks to recover its costs incurred after Plaintiff rejected its Section 998 offer. Tracking the language of the Song-Beverly Act, Defendant offered to pay restitution equal to the actual price paid or payable by Plaintiff (with certain exclusions) plus incidental damages. (Guillot Decl., Ex. A.) Based on information at the time, Defendant estimated this amount to be $40,234.01. (Ibid.) The offer provides that the estimate is subject to adjustment based on proof and that the calculation would be determined by the Court if the parties could not agree. (Ibid.)

            On March 17, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to tax costs, arguing that Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any costs after Defendant’s 998 offer because Plaintiff failed to beat the offer at trial.

LEGAL STANDARD

The statutory scheme for cost recovery establishes three categories of trial preparation expenses: (1) one category allowable as a matter of right to the prevailing party (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)); (2) one category disallowable unless expressly authorized elsewhere by law (Id., § 1033.5, subd. (b)); and (3) one category allowable or disallowable in the court’s discretion (Id., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(4)). Even where costs are deemed allowable, such costs are only recoverable to the extent that they are (1) reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation and (2) reasonable in amount. (Id., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2)-(3).)

Costs may also be cut off or imposed on the prevailing party based on a statutory offer of compromise. “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 998(c)(1).)

DISCUSSION

            As held in the Court’s prior ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs, Defendant’s 998 offer was either lower than the trial verdict or void for being ambiguous. Therefore, the offer does not cut off Plaintiff’s costs. Since this is Defendant’s only basis for taxing Plaintiff’s costs, the motion must be denied.    

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to tax costs is DENIED.