Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Focus Line LLC  

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Holmby Westwood Property Owners Association 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This case arises from construction on a residential lot owned by Defendant Focus Line, LLC located at 10433 Lindbrook Drive in the Holmby Westwood neighborhood of Los Angeles (the “Property”).  Plaintiff Holmby Westwood Property Owners Association (“HWPOA”) is a voluntary neighborhood association made up of members who own property in the Holmby Westwood neighborhood.   

Many of the lots in the Holmby Westwood neighborhood, including the Property, are subject to various deed restrictions.  Among other things, the deed restrictions state that a residence built on the Property must front on Lindbrook Drive and be set back at least 35 feet from Lindbook Drive.  HWPOA is empowered to enforce the deed restrictions.  HWPOA sued Focus Line for building a residence with much less than the 35 feet set back.     

Trial took place between January 23, 2023 and February 1, 2023.  At the conclusion of the trial, the Court ruled in favor of HWPOA.  HWPOA then filed a memorandum of costs seeking $21,529.15.      

This hearing is on Focus Line’s motion to strike or tax the following items from the Memorandum of Costs: (1) Item 12: court reporter fees in the amount of $6,500 and (2) Item 16: trial transcripts purchased for closing briefs in the amount of $7,836.08.  Focus Line argues that the parties agreed to share these costs equally, and as a result, HWPOA cannot recover these costs.    

LEGAL STANDARD 

Generally, a “prevailing party” is entitled to costs. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1032(b); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606.).  “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.)  

Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5 sets forth the costs recoverable by the prevailing party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5.)  “Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §1033.5(c)(2); Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (l992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 244.)  A “properly verified memorandum of costs is considered prima facie evidence that the costs listed in the memorandum were necessarily incurred.”  (Bach v. County of Butte (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 294, 308; see also Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.)   

This puts the burden on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary.  (Ladas v. California State Automotive Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-74.)  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.) 

The memorandum of costs need not contain invoices, billings, or statements.  (Bach, 215 Cal.App.3d at 308; see also Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(a)(1) (only verification required).) “Documentation must be submitted only when a party dissatisfied with the costs claimed in the memorandum challenges them by filing a motion to tax costs.”  (Bach, 215 Cal.App.3d at 308.)     

ANALYSIS 

  While it is clear the parties agreed to share costs relating to the reporter fees and trial transcripts, it is not clear whether they agreed that each party would then be precluded to recover these expenses as costs.  HWPOA contends the parties’ agreement was only that they would initially share in the costs of the court reporter and trial transcripts but the prevailing party could seek recovery of same on a memorandum of costs.  (Bryn Decl. ¶¶ 2, 6, 8. 10.)  This claim is not supported by any contemporaneous writing.  Meanwhile, Focus Line argues that the agreement was to share costs equally, and there was no qualification that such costs could then be recovered in a memorandum of costs.  Focus Line’s claim is supported by contemporaneous emails.  (Ex. B-C of Goodkin Decl.)  Because Focus Line has properly objected to the costs, the burden shifts to HWPOA as the party claiming costs.  Because HWPOA bears the burden of proof and the evidence is in equipoise, the Court grants the motion to strike.          

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant Focus Line LLC’s motion to strike and/or tax costs.   

DATED:  September 26, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court