Judge: Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case: 37-2019-00041928-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 26, 2023

10/27/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Eddie C Sturgeon

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00041928-CU-PA-CTL OCHOA VS PADILLA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Strike or Tax Costs, 03/17/2023

Defendant Maria Jose Padilla's Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's total recoverable costs are $17,340.88.

Costs are awardable 'to a plaintiff who recovers less than the jurisdictional amount for an unlimited civil case when he or she reasonably and in good faith initiated the action believing that the ultimate recovery would exceed the jurisdictional limit.' (Carter v. Cohen (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1053.) The matter is left to the court's discretion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1033(a) ['Costs or any portion of claimed costs shall be as determined by the court in its discretion in a case other than a limited civil case in accordance with Section 1034 where the prevailing party recovers a judgment that could have been rendered in a limited case.'].) Here, the court finds that Plaintiff's designating the case as unlimited was not unreasonable or in bad faith and that costs may be awarded.

Recoverable costs must be both reasonable in the amount and reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1033.5(c)(2), (3); see also Ladas v. California State Auto Ass'n, (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 775-776.) Once costs claimed are challenged via motion, sufficient and reliable documentation must be submitted to sustain the claiming party's burden. (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266.) 'A court has the obligation to ensure that only costs that are necessary and reasonable in amount are allowed to a prevailing party.' (Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.4th 1014, 1039.) The court is authorized to tax or strike costs which it concludes are not reasonably necessary. (Perko's Entertainment, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 245.) Plaintiff has sought $18,420.88 in costs. The court has reviewed the evidence and explanations provided by Plaintiff and finds that the costs requested were, in large part, reasonable and reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. Although Defendant has alleged the existence of an agreement to split the reporter costs, the court finds no 'Exhibit A' on the ROA and, in any case, Defendant breached any such agreement by failing to pay half of the reporter costs. Without an unambiguous agreement to the contrary, reporter costs are recoverable by statute. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied except with respect to $1,080.00 in expert witness fees which are not recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(7). Although Plaintiff argues that the administrative fees imposed by Kaiser are akin to 'ordinary witness fees,' the statutory language is clear that expert fees are not recoverable except for as specified in Government Code section 68093. Had Plaintiff recovered in excess of the Section 998 offer, she could have recovered such expert fees, but she did not. The court taxes the witness fees except for the $70 that would be available as ordinary witness fees. Plaintiff's total recoverable costs are $17,340.88.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2950687  21 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  OCHOA VS PADILLA [IMAGED]  37-2019-00041928-CU-PA-CTL Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2950687  21