Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21STCV41460, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41460    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     April 8, 2024                                       TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         FLORENCE M. SANCHEZ, an individual, v. THE NORTHEAST COMMUNITY CLINIC, a California corporation, EMMA BLANDINA TREJO, M.D., an individual, SANDRA CHU DAMIANI, M.D., an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 21STCV41460

MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Florence M. Sanchez

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendants The Northeast Community Clinic, Emma Blandina Trejo, M.D., and Sandra Chu Damiani, M.D.

SERVICE:                              Filed March 8, 2024

OPPOSITION:                       Filed March 24, 2024

REPLY:                                   No reply filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiff moves for an order striking or taxing Defendants’ memorandum of costs.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Florence M. Sanchez’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendants Emma Blandina Trejo, M.D. (“Dr. Trejo”), Sanda Chu Damiani (“Dr. Damiani”), M.D., and the Northeast Community Clinic (“the Clinic” or “Defendant”) failed to properly evaluate and treat Plaintiff, resulting in her kidney failure going undetected.

            Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on November 7, 2022, alleging three causes of action for (1) medical negligence, (2) negligent misrepresentation, and (3) risks of nontreatment.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to strike or tax costs is DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (b), provides: “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.” “A 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 . . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700, subd. (a)(1).) “Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700, subd. (b)(1).)

               “If items on a memorandum of costs appear to be proper charges on their face, those items are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services are proper and necessarily incurred. [citations.] The burden then shifts to the objecting party to show them to be unnecessary or unreasonable.” (Doe v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 675, 693.) “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.’ [citation.] (Foothill-De Anza Community College Dist. v. Emerich (2007 ) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 29.)

            “[T]he mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a ‘proper objection’ to an item, the necessity of which appears doubtful, or which does not appear to be proper on its face. [citation.] However, ‘[i]f the items appear to be proper charges, the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred by the defendant [citations], and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the [objecting party].’ ” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves for an order striking, or in the alternative taxing, Defendants’ memorandum of costs. Plaintiff, however, only addresses Defendants’ sought deposition costs. In their memorandum of costs, Defendants seek $12,838.36 for deposition costs. In her motion, Plaintiff argues that those costs should be taxed because Defendants failed to provide documentary support for recovery of the costs and because the costs were not reasonable or necessary.

“If items on a memorandum of costs appear to be proper charges on their face, those items are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services are proper and necessarily incurred. [Citations.]” (Doe v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services, supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at p. 693.)

“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.” (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267.) Further, the Court in Jones stated that “ ‘mere statements in the points and authorities accompanying its notice of motion to strike cost bill and the declaration of its counsel are insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing [that the costs were necessarily incurred].’ ” (Id. at p. 1266.)

Here, Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that Defendant’s memorandum of costs were not reasonably incurred. Defendants have met their initial burden by submitting a memorandum of costs that appear to be have proper charges. Plaintiff, however, relies solely on argument contained in her memorandum and has failed to submit any evidence to support her claim that the costs are unnecessary or unreasonable. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to strike or tax costs is denied.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to strike or tax costs is DENIED.

            Defendant to provide notice.

Dated:   April 8, 2024                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org