Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: BC669038, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC669038    Hearing Date: January 5, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to tax is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The Court taxes a total of $57,410.53 from Plaintiff’s claimed costs.

On 11/4/2015, Plaintiff Cynthia Lopez filed suit against Kenneth Lopez. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (FAC) alleges causes of action for: (1) defamation-libel; (2) defamation-slander; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (5) malicious prosecution; (6) abuse of process; and (7) injunctive relief.

            Now, Defendant moves to tax costs.

Discussion

            Defendant seeks an order taxing the following cots:

-          Item 1: Filing fees totaling $5,007.88. Defendant argues that these should be reduced to $850, and should be equitably reduced further.

-          Item 4: Deposition transcripts totaling $66,155.87. Defendant requests that the Court disallow the entire amount.

-          Item 5: Service of Process Fees totaling $8,510.00 Defendant requests that the Court disallow the entire amount.

-          Item 8: Witness Fees totaling $653.20.  Defendant requests that the Court disallow the entire amount.

-          Item 9: Court-ordered transcript costs totaling $3,771.75. Defendant requests that the Court disallow the entire amount.

-          Item 11: Court reporter costs totaling $11,669.76. Defendant requests that the Court disallow the entire amount.

-          Item 12: Models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits costs totaling $5,388.56. Defendant requests that the Court disallow the entire amount.

-          Item 14: $6,571.20 in electronic filing fees. Defendant requests that the Court disallow the entire amount.

-          Item 16: $34,250.42 in “other” costs. Defendant requests that the Court disallow the entire amount.

Plaintiff was the prevailing party in this action, and thus is entitled to recover costs as a matter of right. Plaintiff was awarded damages for each claim, totaling $466,500.00. As such, Plaintiff was the party with net recovery. (CCP § 1032(a)(4).) Plaintiff also meets the definition of a “prevailing party” as a Cross-Defendant under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032(a)(2) and §1(a)(4), as “a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered.” The Court disagrees with Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff is not the prevailing party in this action.

The Court previously continued this matter, and directed Plaintiff to file supplemental materials to better identify the costs being claimed, and to organize the documents to support those costs.

After review, the Court finds Plaintiff to have corroborated her costs as follows.

As to Item 1 and 14, Plaintiff submitted documents which show costs totaling $10,498.1 in fees. (See Lopez Decl., Exhs. 3, 14,15.) Plaintiff’s Memorandum claimed $11,579.08 in fees for Items 1 and 14 ($6,571.20 + $5,007.88). Accordingly, the Court taxes the difference of $1,080.98.

As for Item 4, Plaintiff submitted documentation which shows $36,915.36 in deposition costs.  Given that Plaintiff’s Memorandum claims $66,155.87, the Court taxes the difference of $29,240.51.

As for Item 5, Plaintiff submitted documents which total only $5,182.33. Given that Plaintiff’s Memorandum claims $8,510, the Court taxes the difference of $3,327.67.

            As for Item 8, Plaintiff submitted documentation which shows $2,152.09 incurred. Given that Plaintiff only claimed $653.20, the Court does not tax this amount.

            As for Item 9, Plaintiff submitted documentation which shows $3,771.75 incurred. Accordingly, the Court does not tax this amount.

As for Item 11, Plaintiff submitted documentation which shows $13,100.81. incurred. Given that Plaintiff only claimed $11,669.76, the Court does not tax this amount.

            As for Item 12, Plaintiff submitted documentation which shows $5,397.26 incurred. Given that Plaintiff only claimed $5,388.56, the Court does not tax this amount.

            As for Item 16, Plaintiff did not submit any supplemental documentation, nor did she reorganize Exhibits previously submitted. The Court finds support only for $10,489.05 in claimed costs. Given that Plaintiff claimed $34,250.42 in costs, the Court taxes the difference of $23,761.37.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to tax is granted in part, denied in part. The Court taxes a total of $57,410.53.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 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.