Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 2019-01092749, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Jose A Hernandez, Joanne Ochoa

Motion to Tax Costs

Plaintiffs Jose A. Hernandez and Joanne Ochoa’s motion to strike or tax costs is granted in part and denied in part as set forth more fully below.

A prevailing defendant is entitled to recover costs of suit in Song-Beverly case, pursuant to the general cost statute.  (Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 985, 990, 999.)   Here, Defendant is the prevailing party where the Plaintiffs did not enjoy any recovery against the Defendant after a trial. (CCP § 1032(a)(4).)   Under CCP § 1032(b), a prevailing party is entitled to recover costs as a matter of right.   The allowed costs are enumerated in CCP § 1033.5(a) and discretionary items are also permitted under § 1033.5(c).

Defendant’s verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence that the costs were proper and necessarily incurred.  (Adams v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1486; Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 856.)   There is no requirement for the Defendant to have attached bills, invoices, or receipts.  (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267.)   It is the burden of the unsuccessful party to bring any motion to challenge the costs:  “[o]nly if the costs have been put in issue via a motion to tax costs must supporting documentation be submitted”. (Id.)  Despite this, Defendant not only included the worksheet that itemized each amount sought and a description thereof, Defendant also attached invoices for all claimed costs.

Where the items appear proper on their face, as is the case here, then the burden falls with the moving party to show that they were improper, unreasonable or unnecessary.   (Benach, 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 856; 612 South LLC v. Laconic Ltd. Partnership (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1285.)    Whether an item was reasonable and necessary is a question of fact for the trial court to evaluate.  (Acosta v. SI Corp.(2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1380; Jones, 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266.)

The present Motion failed to identify the items in dispute by the corresponding line-item number in the memorandum as well as discuss them in that order.  (CRC 3.1700(b)(2).)  Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request to strike Defendant’s filing and motion fees $1,959.15; Jury fees $892.98; and Deposition costs $4,603.65 is DENIED.  

The court notes that Plaintiffs also move to strike $3,142.09 for “Fees for Electronic Filings or Service.” (See Mtn. pp. 7:26.) However, Defendants do not seek any such fees in the Memo. of Costs.  Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to this request.

As to “other” costs, the court strikes the costs incurred for lunch, drinks, parking and private investigator in the total amount of $912.29 as they are not recoverable pursuant to CCP § 1033.5(b) or not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, but rather convenient or beneficial to its preparation.

The purchase and downloading of documents from the court’s website are also not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, but rather convenient or beneficial to its preparation.  Thus, the court strikes the amount of $68.62.

The total amount of stricken costs is $980.91. Total allowable defense costs = $9,184.63 ($10,165.54 - $980.91).

Moving party shall give notice.