Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 18STCV00236, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant SRC Entertainment, LLC dba Nightingale Plaza (“Defendant”)

This action arose from an incident that allegedly occurred while Plaintiff was a patron at a nightclub owned and operated by Defendant. The third amended complaint (the “TAC”) alleged: (1) battery; (2) assault; (3) false imprisonment; (4) negligence; (5) negligent supervision; and (6) premises liability.

The action was tried in June 2024. On July 1, 2024, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Defendant on all causes of action. On July 30, 2024, the Court signed and entered judgment and on July 31, 2024, Defendant noticed entry of judgment on the parties.

Allowable costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 must be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation, and must be reasonable in amount. An item not specifically allowable under Section 1033.5(a) nor prohibited under subdivision (b) may nevertheless be recoverable in the discretion of the court if they meet the above requirements (i.e., reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount). If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. (Ladas v. California State Automotive Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-774.)

Moreover, a verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services therein listed were necessarily incurred. (Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 266.) A party seeking to tax costs must provide evidence to rebut this prima facie showing. (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266, superseded by statute on other grounds].) Mere statements unsupported by facts are insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing that costs were necessarily incurred. (Id.)¿On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. (Id.)

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. (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 774.) Because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute, a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized. (Id.) Discretion is abused only when, in its exercise, the court “exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.” (Lincoln v. Schurgin (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 100, 105.)¿

After judgment is entered, the prevailing party “who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a).)

In this case, notice of entry of judgment was served on July 31, 2024. On August 15, 2024, Defendant timely filed a Memorandum of Costs. Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant motion to tax costs. Then, on September 12, 2024, Defendant filed an Amended Memorandum of Costs. Defendant relies on Pointe San Diego Residential Community, L.P. v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 265, to support its position that the Amended Memorandum should be considered because it ‘relates back’ to the initial Memorandum of Costs. However, that decision is not instructive in this case. In Pointe San Diego Residential Community, the Court of Appeals only discussed the relation-back doctrine as it applies to an amended complaint, not an amended memorandum of costs. (Pointe San Diego Residential Community, L.P. v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 265, 276-283.) Furthermore, Defendant has failed to provide any explanation as to why the additional $84,966.96 in costs sought in the Amended Memorandum of Costs were not known or available at the time the initial Memorandum of Costs was filed. Therefore, because the Amended Memorandum was not timely filed, it will not be considered in connection with this motion.

Plaintiff challenges $1,526.35 of Defendant’s costs for hotel, parking, and electric vehicle reimbursement to Litigation Support Professionals as not reasonably necessary because Defendant could have selected a local litigation support company that would not have incurred such expenses. (Mot. p. 3:12-19.) In the opposition, Defendant argues that the cost was reasonably incurred because Litigation Support Professionals is their preferred and trusted company, and since the company is located in Riverside, a daily commute to the courthouse would be impractical. (Opp. p. 3:20-28.)

Upon review, the $1,526.35 for lodging and travel reimbursement were costs incurred for trial litigation support. (Memo. of Costs, No. 12; Invoice 5631.) However, the Memorandum of Costs includes this expense in the $12,747.60 noted under Item 12 for “Models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits.” Defendant does not provide any invoices that indicate $12,747.60 was spent on models, enlargements, or exhibits. Thus, because there is no backup to support the cost for its stated purpose, the Court taxes the entire amount.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED in the total amount of $12,747.60.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court