Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: BC651238, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC651238    Hearing Date: June 29, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs is GRANTED.

On February 23, 2017, Plaintiff Luis Valdivia (Plaintiff) filed suit against the Ticket Clinic (Defendant), alleging: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements; (3) failure to make payment within required time; (4) unfair competition; and (5) breach of oral contract.

            Now, Plaintiff moves to tax costs.

Discussion

Verification of the memorandum of costs by the prevailing party’s attorney establishes a prima facie showing that the claimed costs are proper.  (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267.)  To overcome this prima facie showing, the objecting party must introduce evidence to support its claim that the costs are not reasonably necessary.  (Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Service, Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 266.)

Here, there is no dispute that Defendant is the prevailing party for costs purposes and is therefore entitled to recover its reasonably necessary costs. Defendant’s counsel verified its costs memorandum. Accordingly, the burden shifts to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s filing and motion fees are excessive because Defendant seeks $1,614.53 in filing fees and motion costs, yet only paid a single first paper fee and only brought a single motion to compel a deposition and a single motion for summary judgment. (Medvei Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.) Similarly, Plaintiff argues that $3,013.65 in deposition costs is unreasonable and excessive. In support, Plaintiff notes that the first deposition was cancelled after Defendant tried, and failed, to locate a court reporter, and the second deposition, which did not include a videographer, and was for a single day, could not have reasonably cost $3,013.65.

When a cost item is challenged, the burden shifts to the party seeking the costs to evidence and substantiate those costs. (Ladas v. California State Auto. Ass’n (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 761, 774-77.)

Here, Defendant failed to oppose this motion, and thus has not substantiated any of the challenged costs. Accordingly, it has not met its burden.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  June    , 2023

   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.