Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 20STCV49421, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49421    Hearing Date: April 4, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to strike or tax costs is GRANTED in part.

The Court taxes the costs for “Other.” The motion is otherwise denied.

            On August 26, 2022, Plaintiff Nalleli Cobo Uriarte (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Allenco Energy Inc., Timothy James Parker, Clifford E. Peter Allen, St James Oil Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on September 3, 2021 for (1) negligence and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity.

Plaintiff now moves to strike or tax costs set forth in Defendant Roman Catholic Archdiocese’s (“Defendant”) memorandum of costs. Defendant opposes.

Legal Standard

In general, the “prevailing party” is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs for suit in any action or proceeding. (CCP § 1032(b); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606; Scott Co. Of Calif. v. Blount, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1103, 1108.)¿ Assuming the “prevailing party” requirements are met, the trial court has no discretion to order each party to bear his or her own costs of suit.¿ (Michell v. Olick (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1198; Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 129.) A defendant who is dismissed from the action is the “prevailing party.”¿ (CCP § 1032(a)(4).) This is so whether the dismissal is voluntary or involuntary.¿ (Santisas, supra, 17 Cal.4th at 606.)¿

Allowable costs under 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.)¿ 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.) 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.¿ (Ibid.)¿ However, because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute, a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized.¿ (Ibid.)¿ Discretion is abused only when, in its exercise, the court “exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.”¿ (Ibid.)¿¿¿

Discussion

            Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant is the prevailing party, but argues the memorandum should be stricken as untimely, or alternatively, taxed.

Timeliness

Plaintiff argues that the memorandum is untimely because it was filed more than 15 days after the notice of entry of judgment. The notice of entry of judgment was electronically served on November 28, 2023. The memorandum of costs was filed on December 14, 2023, which is 16 days from the service of the notice.

“A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of mailing of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first. 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 Rule 3.1700(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. If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013.” (CRC Rule 3.1700(b)(1)).) Any period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days. (CCP § 1010.6(a)(3)(B).)

Plaintiff neglected to add the 2 days for email. Accordingly, the memorandum of costs was timely filed and served.

Tax Costs

“[T]he verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary.” (612 South LLC v. Laconic Ltd. Partnership (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1285.) Evidence is generally required in order to support an objection, and the mere submission of conclusions or bare allegations typically does not justify taxing costs. (See County of Kern v. Ginn (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1107) (bare allegation that depositions were neither necessary nor reasonable insufficient to overcome right to costs). Allegations are sufficient, however, if they depend upon undisputed facts where nothing more needed to be, or could have been, added by additional declarations or affidavits. (Fennessy v. Deleuw-Cather Corp. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1196.)

Plaintiff moves to tax certain costs but does not support the request with any evidence as to why the costs are not reasonable or necessary. Further, Plaintiff’s arguments are generally conclusory.

Plaintiff argues that the filing fee for a stipulation is not recoverable, but argues that it was $435, but it was only $20. Further, Plaintiff argues that “Item 63 of the California Statewide Civil Fee Schedule states that there is no fee for a Stipulation that does not require an order. The stipulation that Defendant filed did not require any sort of order.” However, the memorandum of costs actually states that it is a stipulation and proposed order.

Plaintiff also makes the argument that the deposition fees are vague and for example, it should not be charged for service fees from the deposition companies. However, the memorandum of costs does not require Defendant to itemize the deposition fees to such a degree of specificity. Thus, the argument fails.

Plaintiff also argues that service of process fees are unclear and Plaintiff cannot determine who completed the alleged service and what was served. However, the memorandum of costs clearly states the registered name of the person served. As Defendant points out in opposition, it is clear that these were costs incurred for serving subpoenas for production of medical records to each of plaintiff’s medical providers.

Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the costs for “other” are improper. Plaintiff argues that the court reporter fees for the ex parte hearing on 8/3/22 were not necessary because it was uncontested. While Plaintiff does not present any evidence in support of this, Defendant does not appear to deny this assertion and does not make any substantive argument as to this point. Accordingly, Defendant has failed to show this cost is necessary and reasonable. Plaintiff also argues that the investigator fees are not recoverable under CCP § 1033.5(b). Defendant offers no counter argument to this point. Accordingly, this cost is not recoverable.

Thus, the motion to strike or tax costs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court taxes the costs for “Other.” The motion is otherwise denied.

Dated: April 4, 2024

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.