Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: BC670455, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC670455    Hearing Date: December 11, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to tax is DENIED.  

On 8/1/2017, Plaintiff Michael Chang filed suit against Francis Seongjin Ryu alleging extortion.

Now, Plaintiff moves to tax Defendant’s costs.

Discussion

            Plaintiff moves to tax Defendant’s costs on the grounds that: (1) Defendant is not the prevailing party; (2) the deposition costs are excessive; and (3) the service of process fees for members of the LAPD should not be recovered as they were not called as witnesses.

            As to the first contention, Defendant is the prevailing party. As set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1032(a)(4), a prevailing party: “…includes the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant” [emphasis added].)

            Defendant also notes in opposition that he is entitled to recover costs pursuant to his CCP section 998 offer to compromise.

            As to the second contention, Defendant submitted invoices to corroborate the costs claimed. The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s lackluster arguments that the depositions of Defendant, Plaintiff, Steven Frannsenn, and Young Lim should be struck because they “seem” excessive or only lasted a short time. Defendant’s attached invoices indicate that these costs were actually incurred and Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that these depositions, while short, were not actually reasonably necessary to the purposes of litigation.

            As to the third contention, the fact that third-party witnesses are not ultimately called as witnesses does not mean that costs incurred related to those witnesses are unreasonable or unnecessary. To conclude otherwise would incentivize parties to call every subpoenaed witnesses even where unnecessary, lest they be unable to recover those costs. Here, Defendant served subpoenas for Detective Franssen for deposition as well as for trial, and as the trial of this matter was continued on several occasions, Defendant was required to serve a new subpoena upon Detective Franssen, via the LAPD, for each new trial date. Defendant also served subpoenas for the records of the LAPD during discovery, and for production at trial, pertaining to the extortion claim, upon Officer Franssen for his appearance at deposition (two sessions) and at trial. As such, the costs were actually incurred, and the Court finds no basis to include the costs were unreasonable or unnecessary to the purposes of litigation. 

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

It is so ordered.

Dated:  December    , 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.