Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 19STCV13194, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV13194    Hearing Date: August 20, 2024    Dept: 61

VERONICA RODRIGUEZ vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Cedric L. Price’s Motion to Strike or Tax Costs is GRANTED, and Defendant Precision Dental, Inc.’s costs memorandum is stricken.

Moving party to provide notice.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Cedric Price (Price) moves to tax or strike the costs memorandum filed by Defendant and Cross-Complainant Precision Dental, Inc. (Precision) on the grounds that Precision is not the prevailing party in this action and seeks costs that are unreasonable. (Motion at pp. 6–9.)

“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).)

The memorandum of costs is properly stricken because both Precision’s and Price’s respective requests for costs are premature. Neither Plaintiff nor Precision can be deemed a prevailing party prior to the full adjudication of their respective claims against the other, including Plaintiff’s and Precision’s legal claims in the second phase of trial. Judgment has been entered as of July 15, 2024, but only as to the equitable claims asserted in Price’s complaint and Precision’s cross-complaint. Pursuant to Precision’s motion to bifurcate, heard on January 3, 2024, Price’s legal claims against Precision for elder abuse and negligence remain to be adjudicated in a second phase of trial, and Precision’s motion to summarily dismiss those claims was denied on August 6, 2024. It would be premature for this court to exercise its discretion to declare either Price or Precision the prevailing party, merely upon the securing of equitable relief following the first phase of trial, absent any conclusion on the remaining legal claims. Absent such a conclusion, this court cannot determine whether either party has achieved its “principal litigation objectives.” (Wakefield v. Bohlin (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 963, 986.)

The motion is therefore GRANTED, and the costs memorandum is stricken.