Judge Gregory Keosian, Case Number: 19STCV45161, Date: 2023-09-05 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Brandon Joaquin Rodarte Ayala’s Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED, and $1,456.43 in costs are taxed, leaving a total costs award of $4,964.57.

“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 Xue Zhe Jin (Defendant) filed a memorandum of costs on October 25, 2023, seeking $6,421.00 in costs following the entry of judgment in his favor on October 12, 2023. Plaintiff Brandon Joaquin Rodarte Ayala (Plaintiff) filed the present motion to tax costs, seeking to tax the $2,948.30 in filing and motion fees, $2,002.20 in deposition costs, and $1,470.94 in fees for electronic filing or service.

Plaintiff’s challenges to the filing fees are well-supported. These include the costs associated with filing Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, motion for sanctions, and motion for protective order — with each filing fee incurred three separate times, in three different departments, as the present case bounced from Department 29 to Department 78, and then to Department 61, between January 27 and March 8, 2023. Defendant contends that these motions were taken off-calendar with each transfer, and the multiple filings were required to re-set them. (Opposition at pp. 3–5.) But this contentions is unsupported. One day after the case finally arrived in Department 61 on March 8, 2023, a notice of case management conference was issued, scheduling the conference for April 24, 2023. Such a conference would have been the ordinary point at which to reschedule hearings placed off-calendar during an earlier transfer. Defendant elected to incur the fees for re-filing these motions because he did not desire to wait the month until the case management conference.[1] These were costs incurred as a matter of convenience, not reasonable necessity.

There are other problems with these filing costs. First, Defendant claims three filing fees for these motions filed in Department 78, when no such motions were filed with that department for the short time (from February 7 to March 8, 2023) the case resided there. The costs memorandum cites a motion for protective order filed in Department 29, yet the court’s records indicate no filing of any such motion before this matter was transferred from that department on January 27. And while Defendant did file a motion for a protective order in Department 47 on January 30, 2023, Defendant himself sought the transfer from that department (and thus the necessity of re-filing) by filing a peremptory challenge to that department’s judge one week later.

Defendant’s filing fees are therefore properly taxed in the following amounts. Defendant may not recover two of the three $513.75 filing fees for his single motion for summary judgment, and may not recover two of the three $61.65 filing fees for his motion for protective order. Defendant also may not recover any filing fees for his motion for sanctions, which this court denied. Thus $1,335.75 of these fees are taxed.

Plaintiff’s arguments as to deposition costs, however, are not persuasive. Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not provided a breakdown of the $2,000.20 in deposition costs. (Opposition at p. 6.) Yet the costs memorandum identifies three separate costs incurred in transcribing the depositions of Plaintiff, Defendant, and Defendant I Park, Inc.’s person most qualified. These costs are supported on their face.

Plaintiff’s final arguments directed to the electronic service fees are of partial merit. Plaintiff’s contentions that certain fees are listed twice for different amounts is not persuasive, as each of the fees are for different transactions. However, these fees include the following charges associated with duplicative filings of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, motion for sanctions, and motion for protective order:

The motion to tax costs is therefore GRANTED, and $1,456.43 in costs are taxed, leaving a total costs award of $4,964.57.

[1] Defendant’s final motion for summary judgment was filed on March 29, 2023, and the motion for sanctions and motion for protective order were filed on April 3, 2023.