Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 18STCV10279, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV10279    Hearing Date: October 17, 2022    Dept: 61

I.                   MOTION TO TAX COSTS

“Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. If the cost memorandum was served electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4).” (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700, subd. (b)(1).)

“Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (b) [], guarantees prevailing parties in civil litigation awards of the costs expended in the litigation: ‘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.’” (Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (“Williams”) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97, 100.).

“If the items on a verified cost bill appear proper charges, they are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred.” (Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Service, Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 266.) Although individual cost items are ordinarily challenged by a motion to tax costs, no cost-item is effectively put in issue by “mere statements” claiming them to be unreasonable. (Ibid.) However, where “it cannot be determined from the face of the cost bill whether the items are proper,” “the mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a ‘proper objection’ to an item.” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131, 132.)

Defendant Subaru of America, Inc. (Defendant) filed a costs memorandum on August 23, 2022, seeking $10,181.82 in costs. Plaintiff Juan Jose Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff) moves to tax various cost items appearing in Defendant’s memorandum, including $561.55 in filing fees, $100 in deposition costs, $315.90 in electronic filing fees, and $653.35 in other costs. (Motion at pp. 3–5.)

The filing fees sought by Defendant are properly reduced by $513.75 for the second, additional motion for summary judgment reservation made on January 13, 2022, after Plaintiff’s attempted dismissal of this case without prejudice. That dismissal did not warrant a second summary judgment motion, and was effectively addressed by Defendant’s motion to vacate dismissal, which required a charge of only $61.65. (Memo Att. 1g.) The other court-connect fees to remotely attend hearings charged under this subheading are permissible and reasonably incurred as other costs under Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5, subd. (c)(4).

Plaintiff objects to four $25 charges for condensed copies of deposition transcripts. (Motion at p. 4.) Defendant in opposition argues that these charges were simply part of the transcript order and could not be separately removed. (Bell Decl. ¶ 12.) This is a credible explanation, as the receipts at issue list “condensed transcript” as a separate charge in the same manner as the separate charge for “processing & handling,” suggesting that the cost is necessarily incurred in obtaining any deposition transcripts at all. (Memo Att. 4e.)

Plaintiff challenges costs incurred in serving courtesy copies of physical documents to the court and in posting what Plaintiff contends are duplicative jury fees. (Motion at pp. 4–5.) These courtesy copies, however, were delivered to the court in compliance with department rules. And although Plaintiff challenges the posting of duplicative jury fees, these fees were filed alongside a case management statement for Plaintiff’s duplicative and related case, LASC Case No. 22STCV01622.

Plaintiff finally challenges Defendant’s “other” costs. These include a $562.50 charge for mediation services, which Plaintiff contends ought not to be reimbursed, since Defendant agreed to assume half the costs of mediation. (Motion at p. 5.) This is, however, no barrier to recovery of the costs here, since Plaintiff presents no agreement that these costs would not be sought by the prevailing party. (Cutler Decl. Exh. A.)

However, Plaintiff is correct to argue against the recovery of costs for postage and xerox charges, which are specifically not recoverable as costs under Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5, subd. (b)(3). (Motion at p. 5.) These charges amount to $60.85, and are properly taxed from the costs bill.

The motion to tax costs is therefore GRANTED in the amount of $574.60, leaving a total costs award of $9,607.22.