Judge: Kevin A. Enright, Case: 37-2018-00054748-CU-FR-CTL, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 25, 2024

01/26/2024  10:30:00 AM  2103 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kevin A. Enright

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Fraud Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2018-00054748-CU-FR-CTL MAZYCK VS RNL AUTOMOTIVE LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

: The Court rules on plaintiff Cassandra Ann Mazyck (Plaintiff) motion to tax defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc's (Defendant) costs as follows: Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections. Objection Nos. 1-9 to the Graham Declaration are overruled. In addition, the Court declines the request to strike Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and for a continuance to allow for further briefing.

Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700 subd. (b)(2).

Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 subd. (b) provides that a 'prevailing party,' like Defendant, 'is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding. If the items on their face appear to be proper charges, the 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. (Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774-776.) Whether an item listed on the cost bill was reasonably necessary is a question of fact for the trial court.

(Bender v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 968, 989.) An order granting or denying a motion to tax costs is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. (Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc.

(2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 52.) Here, Plaintiff seeks to tax $104,818.41 of the $130,833.31 in costs and asks the Court to award Defendant no more than $26,014.90. The categories of costs Plaintiff wishes to be taxed are as follows: (1) trial exhibits ($26,413.72), (2) 'other' costs i.e., courier fees, downloaded orders, discovery sanctions, lodging, trial preparation expenses, rideshares to trial, employee and witness accommodations ($24,261.68), (3) court reporter fees ($30,125.39), (4) deposition costs ($17,434.68), and (5) filing and motion fees ($1,516.35). The Court notes that Defendant has withdrawn its request for costs totalling $5,538.52 for, among other things, $4,561.80 for discovery-related sanctions.

The Court has reviewed Defendant's Memorandum of Costs, as well as the parties' briefs and evidence and finds that with the exception of the claimed charges of $5,538.52 which Defendant no longer seeks, all of the ordinary costs claimed by Defendant were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and otherwise allowable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 subd. (a) (mandatory) or Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 subd. (c)(4) (discretionary). More specifically, Defendant provided more than sufficient evidence to justify the costs it incurred and requests reimbursement for as to the above noted categories which are the subject of this motion. And as to the issue of Defendant's Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3015207 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MAZYCK VS RNL AUTOMOTIVE LLC [IMAGED]  37-2018-00054748-CU-FR-CTL ability to recover 'other' costs under Song-Beverly, the court in Mitchell v. Blue Bird Body Co. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 32, 36-37, stated that '[a]lthough Civil Code section 1794(d) gives a prevailing buyer the right to recover 'costs and expenses, including attorney's fees,' the statute makes no mention of prevailing sellers. In other words, it does not expressly disallow recovery of costs by prevailing sellers; any suggestion that prevailing sellers are prohibited from recovering their costs is at most implied.

Accordingly, based on the plain meaning of the words of the statutes in question, we conclude Civil Code section 1794(d) does not provide an 'express' exception to the general rule permitting a seller, as a prevailing party, to recover its costs under section 1032(b).' (Italics in original.) (See also Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 985, 991.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion to tax costs is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3015207