Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

Plaintiffs Baldev Devgan and his wife Manju Devgan, allege that employees of the City of Santa Monica (the “City”) were negligent in their response to Manju’s 911 call, reporting that Baldev had fallen and hit his head on the bathtub in an upstairs bathroom in their home.  (Compl. ¶¶ 12-13.)   

Plaintiffs allege City employees (unnamed EMTs and Firefighters, the Doe Defendants) failed to stabilize Baldev’s neck or take other cervical spine precautions while moving him from the bathroom onto a gurney and into an ambulance.  As a result, Plaintiffs claim Baldev suffered injuries to his spine, rendering him a quadriplegic.     

The Court previously sustained the City’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ complaint, dismissing the action.  This hearing is on Plaintiffs’ motion to strike or tax the following items from the Memorandum of Costs: (1) item 1: filing fees, (2) item 5, service of process, (3) item 11, court reporter fees, and (4) item 14, fees for electronic filing and service.  Plaintiffs argue the City did not incur these costs as it is a government entity and is exempt from paying these costs pursuant to Gov. Code § 6103.  Even if the costs were incurred, Plaintiffs argue they are completely unreasonable and without support.  Plaintiffs also argue that the City’s memorandum of costs is untimely.         

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 

Plaintiffs move to tax costs on the ground the memorandum of costs is untimely.  The Court agrees. 

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700 requires a complete memorandum of costs to be filed within 15 days after the date of service of notice of entry of default or dismissal or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment, or within 180 days after entry of judgment.  The memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement that the items of costs are correct and were reasonably incurred in the case.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700.) 

Notice of entry of judgment was served on September 26, 2023.  Accordingly, the memorandum of costs was due by October 11, 2023.  The City filed a memorandum of costs on October 11, but failed to include the worksheet which includes the items of costs.  The City did not file the worksheet until October 31, 2023.  As a result, Defendant’s incomplete memorandum of costs is untimely.  ¿“The time provisions relating to the filing of a¿memorandum of costs, while not¿jurisdictional, are mandatory.”  (¿Hydratec, Inc.¿v.¿Sun Valley 260 Orchard & Vineyard Co.¿(1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 924, 929, citing to¿Sepulveda v. Apablasa¿(1938) 25 Cal.App.2d 381, 388-389.)¿ Accordingly, the Court denies the memorandum of costs as untimely.    

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to tax costs.  

DATED:  November 14, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court