Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: BC684669, Date: 2022-09-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC684669    Hearing Date: September 2, 2022    Dept: 55

MAGALLANES v. LAUSD                                                                        BC684669

Hearing Date:  9/2/22,  Dept. 55

#6:  MOTION TO TAX COSTS CLAIMED BY PLAINTIFF CAMILA LOPEZ MAGALLANES.

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

MP:     Defendant

RP:     Plaintiff

Summary

On 11/22/17, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that, as a result of inadequate supervision by Defendants, cracked asphalt caused Plaintiff to trip, fall and strike her head, resulting in a traumatic brain injury and other injuries.

The causes of action are:

(1) NEGLIGENCE (Cal. Gov. Code § 815.2, 820(a))

(2) NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (Cal. Education Code § 44807)

(3) DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY (Cal. Gov. Code § 835).

MP Positions

Moving party requests the Court to tax Plaintiff’s costs on appeal, on bases including the following:

·         Item No. 3 for Costs for Preparation of Reporter’s Transcript in the amount of $1,795.00:

o   The cost is unreasonable, because there were only 2 proceedings designated by Plaintiff on appeal and the cost of $1,795.000, and the amount claimed for this item is excessive.

o   Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the cost amount for such preparation is reasonable. 

RP Positions

Opposing party advocates denying, for reasons including the following:

·         California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(d) provides that recoverable costs include “[t]he amount the party paid for any portion of the record, whether an original or a copy or both,” and “[t]he costs to produce additional evidence on appeal.”

·         The reporters’ charges to obtain these transcripts were $922.50 and $872.50.

·         “[S]ection 1033.5 is a trial court rule, and should be confined to the trial court context.” (Alan S. v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 238, 261 [holding that the trial court erred in relying on Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 and taxing appellate costs because “the very language and context of section 1033.5 indicates that it does not govern costs on appeal.”).

·         Because costs on appeal are a final money judgment, and since Defendant has not produced an undertaking, the Court should refuse a request for a stay of enforcement of costs. California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(c)(3) (“[a]n award of costs is enforceable as a money judgment);  Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1(a)(1).

Tentative Ruling

The motion is denied.

The Court allows all of Plaintiff’s costs including the attacked amount of $1,795.00.

The Court finds that moving party has not shown that the amount is unreasonable, and the opposing party has evidenced that it is reasonable for filing a petition for writ of mandate as being the actual charges of court reporters.

If a statute expressly allows the particular item of costs and it appears proper on its face, then the burden is on the objecting party to show the costs are unreasonable or unnecessary.  Rozanova v. Uribe (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 392, 399.