TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Steve Algert and Cameron Brown’s Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs is GRANTED. Defendant Timothy Haldeman’s Memorandum of Costs is stricken in its entirety.

Plaintiffs Steve Algert and Cameron Brown to give notice. 

REASONING

“[A] prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b).) A prevailing party is entitled to recover only those costs “necessarily incurred in the case” by that party or on that party’s behalf in prosecuting or defending the action. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(1).) The non-prevailing party may contest any items in the prevailing party’s memorandum of costs by a motion to strike or tax costs. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b); Code Civ. Proc., § 1034, subd. (a).) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, allowable costs include costs that were “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation,” and the costs must be “reasonable in amount.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subds. (c)(2), (c)(3).)

“If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.” (Ladas v. California State Automobile Association (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) “Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court,” but “because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute, a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs Steve Algert and Cameron Brown (“Plaintiffs”) move to strike Defendant Timothy Haldeman (“Defendant”)’s costs in their entirety on the ground that Plaintiffs, not Defendant, were the prevailing parties in this action because they obtained their objective of this litigation, which was to restore their ocean view that Defendant had obstructed. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their action against Defendant on July 24, 2024. Defendant’s memorandum of costs filed on August 6, 2024, totaling $9242,783.30 in costs, seeks costs of $2,150.96 for filing and motion fees, $150.00 for jury fees, $4,750.36 for deposition costs, $233,713.22 for attorney fees, and $2,018.74 for fees for hosting electronic documents. The Court does not consider the propriety of attorney fees here, as those fees are the subject of a separate motion to be heard on January 24, 2025.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (a)(4), states that the “‘[p]revailing 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.” The statute further provides that “[i]f any party recovers other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the ‘prevailing party’ shall be as determined by the court, and under those circumstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or not and, if allowed, may apportion costs between the parties on the same or adverse sides pursuant to rules adopted under Section 1034.” (Ibid.) It is undisputed that Defendant had a dismissal entered in his favor. It follows that the Court must, then, determine who is the “prevailing party” in this action.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant was not the prevailing party because, in filing this action, they sought to compel Defendant to restore their ocean view by simply trimming his hedges in compliance with the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”), and in response to being sued, Defendant complied with the CC&Rs and trimmed his hedges, such that Plaintiffs obtained the relief they sought. (Mot., Algert Decl. ¶ 19; Brown Decl. ¶¶ 20, 23.) Defendant argues that Plaintiffs did not obtain a judicial declaration that Defendant remove all vegetation on his property that obstructed Plaintiffs’ view, Plaintiffs maintained this action for more than two years after Defendant removed a substantial number of the offending trees, Plaintiffs have obtained no additional relief since that time, and Plaintiffs have admitted that Defendant’s June 2022 removal of the trees did not accomplish their litigation objectives by filing a Second Amended Complaint on December 7, 2022, continuing to allege the existence of offending trees.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties in this action. This action was primarily one seeking removal of offending vegetation pursuant to the CC&Rs, which Defendant had refused to do when requested by Plaintiffs. “[T]he test for prevailing party is a pragmatic one, namely whether a party prevailed on a practical level by achieving its main litigation objectives.” (Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Association v. Carson (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 761, 773.) Defendant cut the offending vegetation to Plaintiffs satisfaction enough that they chose to dismiss this action to avoid the continued stress of litigation. Whether Plaintiffs waited to dismiss the action is of little consequence in the Court’s analysis here because Plaintiffs largely spent the time defending against Defendant’s cross-complaint, and there is no case law stating that waiting to dismiss weighs against finding that the dismissing party was the prevailing party. Again, the Court need look only to Plaintiffs’ litigation objectives in this action. It is clear that the objective was removal of the offending vegetation, and Defendant removed the vegetation. For that reason, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Steve Algert and Cameron Brown’s Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs is GRANTED. Defendant Timothy Haldeman’s Memorandum of Costs is stricken in its entirety.

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiffs object to certain statements within the declaration of Matthew S. Urbach. The Court declines to rule on these objections, as counsel’s statements were not material to the Court’s disposition of the present motion.