Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: BC704116, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC704116    Hearing Date: September 18, 2023    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Hasmik Yaghobyan’s Motion to Strike and Tax Costs is GRANTED in part: $2,018.50 in costs are taxed, and the new cost award is $1,690.24.

Defendant 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.)

Plaintiff Hasmik Yaghobyan (Plaintiff) moves to tax the $3,708.74 in costs submitted by Defendants Alan J. Romero and Romero Law, APC (Defendants) on June 5, 2023. Plaintiff argues first that the costs in general are unsupported by documentation. (Motion at pp. 4–5.) Plaintiff also argues that this court should tax the filing fees sought in connection with appeals numbered B306809 and B298742, which were other appeals in other matters. (Motion at p. 6.) Plaintiff also argues that the costs memorandum includes duplicative charges for duplicative motions to dismiss and respondent’s briefs, amounting to $834.90. (Motion at p. 6.) Plaintiff also objects to unsubstantiated service and compiling fees, for which Plaintiff contends it is unclear if they were incurred in the operative appeal. (Motion at p. 6.) Defendant in opposition presents documentation for the fees charged, and contends that all such fees were necessary.

Some outline of the appeals filed in this case is appropriate. Following this court’s ruling of July 8, 2020, granting Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in part, as to Osheen Haghnazarian but not as to Hasmik Yaghobyan, and denying Lala and Leilyan Hagnazrian’s motion to intervene, all Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 10, 2020. Defendants in turn filed a notice of appeal and cross appeal on July 15, 2020. But Defendants abandoned their appeal on July 21, 2020, and Plaintiffs abandoned theirs on July 29, 2020.

The other appeals were filed following this court’s order of December 2, 2020, granting Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs filed notice of appeal was filed on April 5, 2021, and another on April 16, 2021 The first of these appeals was given the case number B312738, while the second was given the case number B312740. (See 6/18/2021 Notices of Default.) The second appeal was ordered dismissed as untimely and duplicative of the first appeal on July 26, 2021, per a remittitur dated December 14, 2021. The first appeal was heard and the judgment of this court was affirmed on March 15, 2023, per a remittitur dated May 30, 2023.

From the above procedural history, a number of cost items sought in Defendants’ memorandum are without merit. Defendants seek a $390 respondent’s fee for appearing in an appeal numbered B298742, for which no corroboration is offered. They seek a $775 appellant’s fee for another appeal numbered B306809, again without explanation. Twice they seek $412.20 fees for motions to dismiss, but the receipts they provide for such motions indicate they were filed in Case No. B312738, in which the motion was evidently unsuccessful, and B298742, which was evidently an appeal not arising from this case, and for which no support or argument is provided.

The following additional charges are also ill-supported:

·         A $10.50 proof of service dated August 5, 2020, in an appeal numbered B306809;

·         A joint appendix charge of $7.50 dated July 31, 2020, in Appeal No. B306809;

·         An appendix charge of $10.50 dated July 25, 2020, in Appeal No. B306620;

Thus a reduction of $2,018.50 is appropriate for the $3,708.74 in costs sought, yielding an overall costs award of $1,690.24.

The motion to tax costs is therefore GRANTED in part; $2,018.50 in costs are taxed, and the new cost award is $1,690.24.