Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 20STCV11815, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV11815    Hearing Date: November 1, 2023    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Stephanie Green’s Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED.

Defendants to provide notice.

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.)

Defendants Danna Munch, Trilar Management Group, and Arbor Ridge Venture, LLC (Defendants) have filed a memorandum of costs seeking $90,445.43, after prevailing at trial. Plaintiff Stephanie Greene (Plaintiff) objects to these costs on the grounds that they are unsubstantiated by documentation. (Motion at p. 4.) Plaintiff further argues that the $47,810.00 in expert witness fees cannot be sought, as Defendants’ offer to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure § 998 was defective, and the costs were unreasonable. (Motion at pp. 5–6.)

Plaintiff’s argument concerning the lack of documentation supporting the costs is unpersuasive. Where the charges appear to be proper, that appearance is “prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services therein listed were necessarily incurred.” Rappenecker, supra, 93 Cal.App.3d at p. 266.) Plaintiff’s conclusory argument that the costs are unsupported by documents furnishes no basis to grant the motion.

Defendants may seek their expert witness fees. As Plaintiff notes, Defendants made a settlement offer to Plaintiff, after which Plaintiff failed to obtain a more favorable judgment or award. In such circumstances, a plantiff may be made “to pay a reasonable sum to cover postoffer costs of the services of expert witnesses.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 998, subd. (c)(1).) Plaintiff contends that the offers (commencing in January 2022) were defective, because they did not offer that a judgment would be entered under Code of Civil Procedure § 998, subd. (b). (Motion at pp. 5–6.) But there is no requirement that the offer include the entry of judgment among its terms, only that it result in a final disposition of the complaint, as by a dismissal. (See American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1055.) Nor is the offer made vague, as Plaintiff contends, by the inclusion of a space for signature by either Plaintiff or her counsel. (Motion at p. 6.)

Plaintiff contends the fees sought for deposing Dan Napier and Abraham Ishaaya, Plaintiff’s experts, were incurred before Defendants served their offer to compromise. (Motion at p. 6.) This is not true, however, as Defendants’ first offers to compromise were served in January 2022. (Opposition Exh. A.)

Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are unpersuasive. The argument against the $1,277.93 sought in connection with exhibit-copying, the $9,100.00 in court reporter fees, and the $4,798.60 for “other” expenses (which are overwhelmingly expenses for deposition subpoenas) rests upon the contention that documents have not been submitted to support the fact that they were incurred. (Motion at pp. 6–7.) In any case, Defendants have submitted receipts and invoices supporting these expenses in opposition. (Safarian Decl. Exhs. B–D [experts]; E [models and exhibits]; F [court reporter fees]; G [subpoenas].)

The motion to tax costs is therefore DENIED.