Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: YC070488, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: YC070488    Hearing Date: February 2, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         February 2, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Defendant Gary Richard Lambert

Responding Party:                  None

Motion for Order Striking and/or Reducing Costs

            The court considered the moving papers.

RULING

            The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

            On March 25, 2015, Symar Uppal dba Narbonne Dental Care filed a complaint against Janet Lambert and Gary Richard Lambert for defamation.

            On March 16, 2017, after a court trial, judgment was entered against defendants in the amount of $200,000 in damages, and $5,000 in punitive damages, for a total of $205,000.

            On October 28, 2020, plaintiff filed an abstract of judgment against defendants.

            On September 30, 2022, a writ of execution issued in the amount of $279,878.66, which includes the total judgment plus interest and fee for issuance of writ.  Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs after judgment, acknowledgment of credit, and declaration of accrued interest.   Plaintiff acknowledged total payments to date in the amount of $38,829.18, credited to interest.

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

            Defendants Gary Lambert and Janet Lambert (self-represented) request an order striking the post judgment memorandum of costs filed on October 30, 2022, pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b), as to the accrued interest. 

Defendants state that they “have a severe hardship/bankruptcy/unable to pay.”

Hardship is not a basis for striking or taxing costs under Rule 3.1700.  Defendants provide no evidence of a bankruptcy.

The motion is thus DENIED.
            The clerk is to to give notice of this ruling.