Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 18STLC06593, Date: 2024-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STLC06593    Hearing Date: May 22, 2024    Dept: 61

CRISTINA E. KIM vs ADOLFO ECHEAGARAY, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Cristina E. Kim’s Motion to Strike Costs is GRANTED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

DISCUSSION  

This matter came on for non-jury trial on November 27, 2023, with the court taking the matter under submission on December 5, 2023. On February 6, 2023, this court issued its decision, finding in favor of Plaintiff on the common counts claim, in the amount of $4,956.00, with prejudgment interest. The court found in Defendants’ favor on the breach of contract, quite title, and declaratory relief causes of action. 

Defendants filed a memorandum of costs on February 16, 2024, seeking $1,360.47 in costs.

Plaintiff filed the present motion to strike costs bill on March 5, 2024. Defendants filed an opposition on May 9, 2024. Plaintiff filed a reply on May 16, 2024.

Analysis

I. MOTION TO STRIKE COSTS

“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).)

“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. If 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.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)

Plaintiff Cristina Kim (Plaintiff) moves to strike the memorandum of costs filed by Defendants Ericka and Adolfo Echeagaray (Defendants) on February 16, 2024. Plaintiff reasons that because she has obtained “a net monetary recovery” on her common counts claim, Defendants cannot claim to be prevailing parties. (Motion at pp. 3–4.) Defendant in opposition argues that the only party liable on the common counts claim was Ericka, not Adolfo, who may therefore claim costs as no monetary recovery may be had against him. (Opposition at p. 3.) Defendants also argue that this court possesses discretion to determine that they are the prevailing parties based on their success against Plaintiff’s other causes of action. (Opposition at pp. 3–4.)

Defendants’ arguments fail on both counts. The common counts claim was alleged against both Defendants, and the judgment after trial makes no differentiation between them. (Complaint ¶¶ 18–20.) Even if Defendants’ characterization of the award were accurate, there is no differentiation in the costs sought between Ericka and Adolfo. “When a prevailing party has incurred costs jointly with one or more other parties who are not prevailing parties for purposes of an award of costs, the judge must apportion the costs between the parties.”.(Wakefield v. Bohlin (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 963, 986, disapproved on other grounds in Goodman v. Lozano (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1327.) No such apportionment can be made here, and the costs are sought jointly. Finally, Defendants’ reliance on court discretion to determine the prevailing party relies on authority applicable to parties seeking attorney fees under a contract. (Opposition at pp. 3–4.) By contrast, courts lack discretion to determine the prevailing party other than as prescribed in the statutory categories of Code of Civil Procedure § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) Defendants are therefore not the prevailing party.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.