Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 21TRCV00069, Date: 2023-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00069    Hearing Date: February 1, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         February 1, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Defendant Sandra Dovidio

Responding Party:                  Plaintiff Baldwin Mader Law Group

Motion to Strike, or in the alternative, Tax Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs

            The court considered the moving and opposition papers.

RULING

            The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On February 1, 2021, plaintiff Baldwin Mader Law Group filed a complaint against Sandra Dovidio for breach of contract. 

On March 16, 2021, defendant (self-represented) filed an answer.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

            “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 dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.”  Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(a)(1).

            “Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the costs memorandum.  If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013.”  Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(1).

            “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.  This means that the prevailing party is entitled to all of his costs unless another statute provides otherwise.  Absent such statutory authority, the court has no discretion to deny costs to the prevailing party.”  Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 111, 128-29 (citations and internal quotations omitted); CCP §1032(b) (“Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding”).

            CCP §1033.5(c) states, in relevant part:  “Any award for costs shall be subject to the following:

            (1) Costs are allowable if incurred, whether or not paid.

            (2) Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.

(3) Allowable costs shall be reasonable in amount.

            (4) Items not mentioned in this section . . . may be allowed . . . in the Court’s discretion.”

DISCUSSION

            Defendant requests an order striking or taxing plaintiff’s memorandum of costs because she has a fee waiver and “costs accrued per the Plaintiff’s own choice.”

On October 6, 2022 plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs for $935 filing fees, $1106 deposition costs, $104.95 service of process, $13.50 fees for electronic filing, and $15 for other (remote appearance fee), for a total of $2,174.45. 

In opposition, plaintiff argues that it is entitled to its costs as a matter of right under CCP §§1032(a)(4) and (b) because it is the prevailing party.  Plaintiff asserts that defendant fails to provide the court with any statutory authority or case law supporting her argument that the court should disregard CCP §1032.  Plaintiff argues that whether the court granted defendant a fee waiver is irrelevant, and defendant offers no authority to contrary.  In any event, plaintiff contends, its requested costs are reasonable and necessary.

            The court rules as follows:  The court finds that defendant has not rebutted that plaintiff is entitled to recover its costs as the prevailing party.  Defendant does not cite to any authority that her fee waivers also included plaintiff’s costs.  Rather, the fee waivers stated that she did not have to pay the court fees for the following, for example, filing papers, making copies and certifying copies, sheriff’s fee, court fee for phone hearing, giving notice, reporter’s fee, and jury fees and expenses.

            The motion is thus DENIED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.