Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV13615, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13615    Hearing Date: November 21, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ motion to strike is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to $2,727.26 in “Other” costs, but DENIED as to all other costs.

On 4/9/2021, Plaintiff Ave I Group, LLC (Plaintiff) filed suit against Equity Partners, LTD and Christopher Lee, alleging: (1) breach of lease and (2) breach of guaranty of lease.

Defendants asserted a Cross-Complaint for: (1) Breach of Lease; and (2) Detrimental Reliance.

            On 9/6/2024, Defendants/Cross-Complainants (Defendants) moved to tax costs.

Discussion

            Defendants move to tax the following costs:

-         Item 1: Filing & Motion Fees

-         Item 5: Service of Process

-         Item 12: Models, enlargements, and photocopies

-         Item 14: E-Filing or Service Fees

-         Item 16: Other, Miscellaneous

As for Item 1, Defendants move to tax $1,950.00 in costs. Defendants argue that these costs are duplicative because Plaintiff did not “need to file separate actions against Mr. Richie and Richie Litigation, P.C., and Mr. Lee and Equity Partners, Ltd.” (Motion, 2: 14-15.) However, the two separate actions, which were eventually related and consolidated into one action here, concerned distinct leases with unique obligations for two different units. The costs claimed were actually incurred, and Defendants did not set forth any legal authority suggesting that the consolidation of these actions defeats Plaintiff’s statutory entitlement to recovery of its costs. As such, the Court finds these costs to be recoverable.

As for Item 5, Defendants move to tax $719.83 in costs. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s memorandum of costs does not specify the manner in which service was conducted, and thus it cannot be determined whether the items are proper. In opposition, Plaintiff submitted a breakdown showing the registered process service fees incurred totaling $719.83. (Saccuzzo Decl., Exh. A., pg. 2, No.5.) Accordingly, Plaintiff has shown these costs were actually incurred.

As for Item 12, Defendants move to tax $2,286.12 in costs. Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not rely on many of the numerous exhibits cited, and many of the costs would have been avoided had Plaintiff cited to the same documents in the record for its previous motion for summary adjudication. See also, Rojas v. HSBC Card Services Inc. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 860, 891-892.). However, as noted by Plaintiff:

In accordance with the Los Angeles Superior Court’s Local Rules and the Department Rules for this Court, Ave I appeared ready for trial on March 2, 2023, along with copies of its trial exhibits. (Id.) After appearing ready for trial, the parties discussed the phasing of trial given Ave I’s equitable reformation cause of action. (Id.) The Court suggested, and the parties agreed, that the issue of reformation would be tried first by “motion,” which due to the filing requirements for the Los Angeles Superior Court was labeled as a “Motion for Summary Adjudication.” (Id.) However, despite the labeling of this “Motion” the parties effectively agreed to try the issue of reformation through briefing and in briefing this issue to the Court the trial exhibits previously prepared in advance of trial call were used. (Id.)

            (Opp., 6:14-20.)

Moreover, as the Supreme Court observed in Segal v. Asics America Corp. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 651, 667, unused exhibit costs are recoverable in the discretion of the trial court. After review, the Court finds these costs to be recoverable.

As for Item 14, Defendants move to tax $2,080.79 in costs. Defendants argue that “[f]iling fees per electronic service providers are substantially lower than this per transaction and this is not a reasonable amount requested and in violation of CCP § 1033.5(c)(2).” (Motion, 2: 23-25.) However, this assertion is conclusory. Moreover, Defendants do not contend that this amount was not actually incurred. As such, the Court finds these costs to be recoverable.

As for Item 16, Defendants move to tax $2,727.26 in costs. These costs are characterized as “report fees/courier fees/miscellaneous fees. Without further elaboration, these costs are characterized as: (1) CBRE Records: $246.60; (2) Hearing: $900; (4) Secretary of State certified copy: $5.00; (5) Minute Order: $8.60; (6) Advanced Attorney Service: $667.06. (See Saccuzzo Decl., Exh. A., pg. 4.) Plaintiff’s opposition does not elaborate on the meaning, or necessity, of any of these costs but rather argues that the costs were “reasonable and incurred as part of the complex litigation process….” (Opp., 8:1-2.) The Court finds an insufficient basis to conclude that these costs were actually and reasonably incurred, rather than merely convenient. (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to strike is granted in part, denied in part. Defendants’ motion is granted as to $2,727.26 in “Other” costs, but denied as to all other costs.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  November    , 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.