Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: BC721810, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC721810    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 61

Plaintiffs Reza Safaie, Bahareh Safaie, and S.B.R.S., Inc.’s Motion to Strike or Tax Costs is GRANTED as to all costs sought in the July 20, 2022 memorandum.

Plaintiffs 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.)

Plaintiffs seek to tax or strike the $876.85 in costs sought in Defendants memorandum of costs, reasoning that Defendants provide no detail for the costs sought, whether they were incurred individually or collectively, and in any event cannot be sought because they remain in the litigation and are not prevailing parties within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure § 1032. (Motion at pp. 3–9.) Defendants in opposition contend that the $500 in filing fees reflects the necessary filing of their motion for summary adjudication, which the court granted.

Defendants are not entitled to costs because they are not prevailing parties. A “prevailing party” is statutorily entitled to recover costs “in any action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1032, subd. (b).) A “prevailing party” includes “the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) Defendants have not been dismissed. They have obtained no net monetary recovery. It remains to be seen whether Plaintiffs shall obtain any relief against them. Defendants prevailed only on their motion for summary adjudication, which dismissed foreclosure-based claims and a prayer for punitive damages against a deceased defendant. Defendants have prevailed upon one motion, not this “action or proceeding.” No costs may be awarded at this time.

The motion is GRANTED as to all costs sought in the memorandum.