Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 19SMCV01316, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV01316    Hearing Date: February 28, 2023    Dept: O

Case Name:               SB Restoration, Inc. d/b/a Servpro of Santa Barbara v. Yao, et al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO TAX COSTS

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants Mingson Yao and Donna Xie Yao

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff SB Restoration, Inc. d/b/a Servpro of Santa Barbara

TENTATIVE RULING

             Defendants Mingson Yao and Donna Xie Yao’s Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED.

I.  Applicable Law

“In ruling upon a motion to tax costs, the trial court's first determination is whether the statute expressly allows the particular item and whether it appears proper on its face.  If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show the costs to be unnecessary or unreasonable.  Where costs are not expressly allowed by the statute, the burden is on the party claiming the costs to show that the charges were reasonable and necessary.”  Rozanova v. Uribe (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 392, 459. 

“Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.  However, because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute [citation] a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized.  When the issue to be determined is whether the criteria for an award of costs have been satisfied, and that issue requires statutory construction, it presents a question of law requiring de novo review.”  Id.

The memorandum of costs must be “verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case.” CRC 3.1700(a)(1). Initial verification will suffice to establish the reasonable necessity of the costs claimed. There is no requirement that copies of bills, invoices, statements, or any other such documents be attached to the memorandum. Supporting documentation must be submitted only if costs have been put in issue by a motion to tax costs See Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267.

II.  Defendants fail to demonstrate that any of the costs are unnecessary or unreasonable or that the memo of costs is defective in any way

            Defendants argue the memo of costs must be stricken, because it is premature under CRC Rule 3.1700.  Time limits governing a memorandum of costs are not jurisdictional.  See Haley v. Casa Del Rey HOA (2007) 153 Cal.App.4^th 863, 880. The premature filing of a memo of costs is a “mere irregularity at best” and a prematurely filed memo of costs is treated as timely filed.  Id.

            Defendants argue the costs memo is not verified and supported by documentation.  Defendants are incorrect regarding verification. Plaintiff fully completed Judicial Council Form MC-010, including the verification.  See Memo of Costs filed on 11-8-22, p. 1.  Defendants are also incorrect that Plaintiff was required to submit supporting documentation with the memo of costs.  Initial verification establishes the reasonable necessity of the costs claimed. There is no requirement that copies of bills, invoices, statements, or any other such documents be attached to the memorandum. Supporting documentation must be submitted only if costs have been put in issue by a motion to tax costs.  See Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267.

            Apart from the timeliness of the memo of costs, the failure to verify and the failure to submit documentation, Defendants challenge the following items of cost:  (1) court reporter fees of $8077.49; (2) models, enlargements and photocopies of exhibits of $2329.05; (3) interpreter fees of $4538; (4) “other” costs in the amount of $2,470.45; (5) deposition costs of $676.30; (6) service of process costs in the amount of $534.83; (7) fees for electronic service and filing of $220.16. 

Defendants fail to present any facts that would call into question the reasonable necessity of these challenged costs, a number of which are expressly recoverable under CCP §1033.5(a), including deposition costs and service of process costs.  Defendants’ assertion that the costs are excessive are not borne out by the amounts requested.  Moreover, Plaintiff provides additional supporting documentation in opposition to the motion addressing any claim that the amounts requested were unreasonable or not reasonably necessary to the litigation.  See Opposition, Dec. of D. Reed, ¶5, Ex. A.

Defendants requested the interpreter, which necessitated the court reporter.  See Opposition, Dec. of D. Reed, ¶4. Defendants cannot argue now the interpreter or the court reporter was not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. 

Finally, Defendants argue their intention to appeal requires that the Court grant this motion. Defendants fail to cite any authority to support this position. 

Defendant fails to establish that any of the challenged costs are expressly not allowed under CCP §1033.5 or that they were not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.  Defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED.