Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV18790, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Allied Physicians of California, PMC (“Defendant”)

On June 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint in this case against Defendant Allied Physicians of California, PMC dba Allied Pacific IPA, erroneously sued and served as Allied Pacific IPA (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive for: (1) General Negligence; (2) Humiliation; and (3) Emotional Distress.

On June 28, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion was unopposed. On January 10, 2024, this Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment. On January 24, 2024, Defendant filed its Memorandum of Costs (Summary).

On February 13, 2024, this Court entered Judgment in favor of Defendant on the Motion for Summary Judgment, ordering that Plaintiff take nothing by this action and Defendant recover from Plaintiff the costs of suit in the sum of $4,685.94.

On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed this instant Motion to Strike Memorandum of Costs. On February 13, 2024, Defendant filed its opposition. The reply was due on March 19, 2024; however, none has been filed.

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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032(b).) “Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(c)(2).) “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 Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 761, 774.) “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.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff moves to strike the entire amount of the Memorandum of Costs. Plaintiff argues she is currently on a limited income, receiving $1,385.00 monthly. Plaintiff further asserts she is a single parent of six children, ages 23 (who lives over five hours away), 6, 5, 3, and twins that are five (5) months old. Moreover, Plaintiff asserts she is enrolled in a Doctor of Psychology program, where she makes monthly tuition payments of $445.00 and other monthly expenses as well. As such, Plaintiff contends she is unable to pay what the Defendant is requesting. Plaintiff also contends she received a fee waiver to file this case. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that she did not foresee this case not going to trial, would like to receive a Final Judgment so she can pursue further action, and Defendant knew of her mental health and medical history. Lastly, Plaintiff argues Defendant used its knowledge of her health history to bombard her with several emails, motions, and requests in an effort to deter her from pursuing this case.

In opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiff does not cite to any legal authority whatsoever for striking its Memorandum of Costs. In fact, Defendant asserts Plaintiff’s sole ground for her motion is that she is unable to pay a costs award, a circumstance which is not germane to her motion. Defendant further argues the right to costs is strictly statutory and awarded as a matter of right in favor of the prevailing party in personal injury actions such as this case. Defendant asserts it is the prevailing party by virtue of the Court’s having granted its Motion for Summary Judgment on January 10, 2024. Moreover, Defendant contends an entire cost bill may only be stricken for late service or another irregularity, or on the ground that the action or judgment does not call for a cost award. (Markart v. Zeimer (1925) 74 Cal.App. 152, 156.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not allege late service or any other procedural deficiency, and does not cite any authority holding that this is not an action which calls for a cost award.

In addition, Defendant asserts that in this action Plaintiff alleged she suffered damages in the amount of $1,585,000.00 consisting of pain, suffering, and inconvenience in the amount of $523,050.00 and emotional distress in the amount of $1,061,950.00. (Platt Decl., ¶, Ex. A.) As such, Defendant was compelled to retain an attorney and to expend substantial sums in discovery, in bringing several discovery motions, in bringing a Motion for Summary Judgment, and otherwise, in order to defend itself in this action. Finally, Defendant contends California courts have rightly and reasonably held that when a party is entitled to an award of costs, an alleged inability to pay is not legal grounds for striking a cost memorandum.

The Court finds that any contentions regarding Defendant’s conduct in this case, Plaintiff’s efforts in pursuing Final Judgment, and Plaintiff’s medical and mental health history are irrelevant to the relief sought in this present motion. Thus, these contentions and allegations have not be considered in the ruling on this motion. The Court further finds that an inability to pay a cost award is not grounds for striking a memorandum of costs. Plaintiff cites neither statutory nor case law authority supporting such contention or argument. Also, Plaintiff has not shown that the costs sought by Defendant were unreasonable or unnecessary to the conduct of the litigation. By contrast, Defendant has shown that these costs were reasonably and necessarily incurred to defend itself against Plaintiff’s claims for substantial damages giving rise to this action.

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