Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 19BBCV00147, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT PER CRC 3.1308

The Court will attempt to post all Tentative Rulings at least the day prior to the hearing by 3:00 p.m.; however, the Court does not post Tentative Rulings for all matters.  

The
Court will indicate in the Tentative Ruling whether the Court is requesting oral argument.  For cases where the Court is not requesting argument, then pursuant to
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is
required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no
argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the
court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention
to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the
court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”   

Notice
may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818)
260-8412.

Notice of the ruling must be served as indicated in the tentative.  Remote appearances are permitted for all law and motion unless otherwise indicated by the Court.  

Case Number: 19BBCV00147    Hearing Date: December 15, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO TAX COSTS

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

On September 25, 2023, judgment was entered in favor of Trans-Atlantic Motors Ltd, Pierre Moeini, Golriz Moeini, 11601 Ventura Blvd. LLC, and 22456 Ventura Blvd. LLC (“Defendants”) as against JSP Medical Management Inc. (“Plaintiff”) after a non-jury trial.

On October 6, 2023, Defendants filed their memorandum of costs. Plaintiff now moves to tax certain costs from the memorandum, claiming they are statutorily impermissible. Defendants oppose the motion and Plaintiff replies.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

“‘The right to recover any of the costs of a civil action “is determined entirely by statute.”’ [Citation.] “‘[I]n the absence of an authorizing statute, no costs can be recovered by either party.”’ [Citation.] ‘Section 1032 governs the award of costs of trial court litigation.’ [Citation.]” (Charton v. Harkey (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 730, 737.)  

“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.”  (C.C.P. § 1032(b).)

C.C.P. § 1032(a) defines a “prevailing party” as “[1] the party with a net monetary recovery, [2] a defendant in whose favor dismissal is entered, [3] a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and [4] a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.”  A prevailing party claiming prejudgment costs must file and serve a memorandum of costs either (1) within 15 days after the date of service of a notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under C.C.P. § 664.5, (2) 15 days after the service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or (3) within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(a).)  However, time limitations pertaining to a memorandum of costs are not jurisdictional, and premature filings of this memorandum are treated as “a mere irregularity.” (Haley v. Casa Del Rey Homeowners Assn. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 863, 880.)  Courts routinely treat prematurely filed costs bills as being timely filed. (Ibid.)  

Any motion to strike or tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the memorandum, plus an additional 5 days if served by mail or 2 days if served electronically.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(1).) “Unless objection is made to the entire cost memorandum, the motion to strike or tax costs must refer to each item objected to by the same number and appear in the same order as the corresponding cost item claimed on the memorandum of costs and must state why the item is objectionable.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(2).) “If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) 

II.                 MERITS

Plaintiff seeks to tax costs listed in Section 9 of Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs, labeled “Court-ordered Transcript.”  Defendant’s “Court-ordered Transcripts” are listed at $22,068.44.

Plaintiff argues that this entire amount should be taxed as the Court did not order any transcripts. Plaintiff states the parties agreed to split costs of a court reporter on February 7, 2023. (Goharchin Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff states there is no minute order from this Court indicating that it ordered transcripts for the trial. (Id.) As such, Plaintiff argues the $22,068.44 pertains to trial transcripts which the Court did not order and are impermissible under C.C.P. § 1033.5(b)(5). (Id.)

Defendants’ counsel maintains that the Court requested trial transcripts and RealTime reporting. (Hom Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) As such, Defendants argue the costs of trial transcripts and real time reporting are properly requested. Defendants’ counsel does state that they inadvertently combined the daily reporter fee and rough transcript fee into costs for the final transcripts and the RealTime reporting costs. (Hom Decl. ¶ 8.) Defendants now provide an accounting of the daily court reporter fee, RealTime, and final transcript. (Hom Decl. Exh. 2.) Defendants state they incurred costs of $6,375 in court reporter fees, $683.25 for RealTime, and $5,089.28 for the final transcripts. (Hom Decl. ¶ 10.) Defendants state that the total amount of costs in their Memorandum of Costs should be $31,713.70.

Plaintiff argues in reply that Defendants impermissibly ask the Court to increase the amount of their costs from the amount stated in the memorandum. The Court notes that Defendants are actually asking for substantially less, $31,713.70 rather than $41,634.61. Plaintiff also argues that Defendants have made no formal amendment to their Memorandum of Costs despite realizing the mistake, though cites to no authority that Defendants are required to do so.

Court Reporter Fees

The Court notes that Defendants’ accounting for the court reporter fee in their opposition does not add up. Defendants attach invoices for the court reporter for eight full days of trial at $750/day and three half days of trial at $375/half-day. (Hom Decl. Exh. 2.) This would total $7,125 in court reporter fees.  However, the parties agreed to split the reporter fees and

Defendants are attempting to recover the entirety of the court reporter costs despite the agreement to split.

As such, the Court taxes Defendants’ costs in the amount of $3,562.50. This amount is half of the court reporter fee, as properly calculated given the invoices provided by Defendants.

Transcripts & RealTime

Similar to the calculation of court reporter fees, the Court finds Defendants’ calculation of the final transcript fees to be incorrect. At the rates provided in the invoices, the final transcripts should total to $4,073.78, not the $5,089.28 Defendant claims.

Further, the Court is not aware of any order it made for transcripts or RealTime of the trial.  The Court’s standard practice is to advise the parties that they must either have a court reporter or agree on a settled statement for each day’s testimony prior to the Court resuming the trial the next day.  Any such settled statement must be on file with the court clerk.   The parties in this matter opted for a court reporter.   Furthermore, the Court did not order RealTime but simply inquired if the reporter had real time available for the Court’s use.  As for transcripts, the Court does not typically order copies of transcripts but relies on the argument of counsel, the exhibits admitted into evidence, the Court’s own notes, and any transcripts the parties chose to lodge with the Court as part of their closing papers.  At times counsel may inquire if the Court would “like” transcripts, to which the Court typically indicates that it is often helpful; however, the Court does not consider such a colloquy to be tantamount to a Court order.  The Court is unable to locate any order that mandated transcripts, nor does Defendant provide evidence of such an order. However, if such an “order” is memorialized in any transcript, the Court will reconsider any taxing of these costs.  As such, Defendant’s costs are taxed $5,089.28 for claimed transcript fees.  However, the Court will deny the request to tax costs for $683.25 for RealTime fees as the providing of RealTime greatly facilitates the trial and is authorized under the Court’s discretionary authority.  

Conclusion

The Court accepts Defendant’s request in their opposition to change the total Memorandum of Costs to $31,713.70, reflecting the mistakes made in the original memorandum of costs. The Court thereafter GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to tax that sum. Defendant’s costs are taxed in the amount of $3,562.50, reflecting Defendant’s half of the court reporter fees. Defendant’s costs are further taxed in the amount of $5,089.28 reflecting the amount Defendant claims is owed for court ordered final transcripts for a total of $8,651.78.

As such, Defendant’s total costs after taxing would be $23,061.92.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

JSP Medical Management Inc.’s Motion to Tax Costs came on regularly for hearing on December 15, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO TAX COSTS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.  

DEFENDANTS’ TOTAL COSTS ARE AMENDED TO $31,713.70, AT DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST.

THE COURT ORDERS THESE COSTS TAXED IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 8,651.78.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF IS TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  December 15, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles