Judge Kristin S. Escalante , Case BC689983 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 24 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Submission Instructions.

1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SMCDEPT24@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. You must cc all other parties on the email.

2. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, case name and number, date of hearing and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions

3. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a motion placed off-calendar and parties are ordered to cancel the reservation on CRS.

4. If all parties submit, the tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date. The moving party shall give notice of the final ruling.

5.Tentative rulings are not invitations or opportunities to file further documents relative to the hearing before the Court. Said document(s) will not be considered by the Court.

Defendant Martha Brewer Koo’s Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative Tax, Costs is GRANTED. The memorandum of costs is stricken because neither party is the prevailing party. Alternatively, it is stricken in the court’s discretion under section 1033, subd. (a).

“’Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b).) “When a party obtains a small judgment in his or her favor that is only a fraction of what is sought in the litigation, the court has the discretion to conclude that neither side is the prevailing party. (Harris v. Rojas (2021) 66 Cal. App. 5th 817, 824.) “The case law directs courts to determine the party's litigation objectives and to see if it achieved them.” (Id.; see also Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 875 [trial court has discretion to say there is no prevailing party when the victory and the loss are evenly divided; also, when the ostensibly prevailing party receives only a part of the relief sought, typically a determination of no prevailing party results].)

Here, the court finds that neither side was the prevailing party. Plaintiff sought $93,885.00 in damages and the jury awarded only $6.750.00. The court finds that Plaintiff’s litigation objectives were not achieved and that Plaintiff was not the prevailing party. The court strikes the memorandum of costs on that basis.

Even if Plaintiff were the prevailing party, the court would still strike the costs. “[W]hen ‘the prevailing party recovers a judgment that could have been rendered in a limited civil case’, and the action was not brought as a limited civil case, Code of Civil Procedure section 1033's subdivision (a) (hereafter section 1033(a)) states that “[c]osts or any portion of claimed costs shall be as determined by the court in its discretion....” (Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal. 4th 970, 975.)

“[S]ection 1033(a) applies when a plaintiff has obtained a judgment for money damages in an amount (now $25,000 or less) that could have been recovered in a limited civil case, but the plaintiff did not bring the action as a limited civil case and thus did not take advantage of the cost- and time-saving advantages of limited civil case procedures. In this situation, even though a plaintiff who obtains a money judgment would otherwise be entitled to recover litigation costs as a matter of right, section 1033(a) gives the trial court discretion to deny, in whole or in part, the plaintiff's recovery of litigation costs.” (Chavez, supra, 47 Cal. 4th at 975.)

The “factors that a trial court should ordinarily consider in exercising its discretion under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1033[, subdivision] (a)” include “the amount of damages the plaintiff reasonably and in good faith could have expected to recover and the total amount of costs that the plaintiff incurred.” (Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc. (2020) 57 Cal. App. 5th 221.)

The court finds that the damages that plaintiff sought in this case were grossly inflated and that plaintiff could not have reasonably expected to recover more than the jurisdictional limit for limited jurisdiction cases when Plaintiff filed and litigated this case. Further, had the damages sought in the case been reasonable, there would have been a substantially greater likelihood that the case would have settled. In light of these factors, even if the plaintiff somehow could be considered the prevailing party, the court would exercise its discretion to disallow costs.