Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 21GDCV00782, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV00782    Hearing Date: March 27, 2024    Dept: P

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          I.        INTRODUCTION

           This is a lemon law case. Plaintiff Selvin Torres (Torres) alleges that he purchased a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, VIN # 1GCPYCEF9KZ421901 in August of 2019. He alleges various issues with the vehicle including: (1) defective tire pressure monitoring system, (2) defective display system, (3) defective audio system, (4) defective engine system; and (5) Defective electrical system. He sues the manufacturer of the vehicle, General Motors LLC (GM).

The matter was resolved by way of settlement; the parties filed a notice of settlement on October 18, 2023. Plaintiff’s counsel filed his memorandum of costs on December 13, 2023.

          GM filed this motion to tax costs on January 4, 2024. Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 14, 2024. GM filed a reply on March 19, 2024. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part.

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

          Civil Code Section 1794(d) provides for attorney fees and costs if a buyer prevails on a lemon law claim. Specifically, “If the buyer prevails in an action under this section, the buyer shall be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees based on actual time expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action.” (CC § 1794(d), emphasis added.)

          CCP Section 1032 provides that a prevailing party may recover their costs. (CCP § 1032.) CCP Section 1033.5(a) itemizes allowable costs; CCP Section 1033.5(b) itemizes costs that are not allowed. Subsection (c) provides that costs shall be necessary to the litigation and reasonable in amount, and that items of cost not mentioned in the statute are recoverable in the court’s discretion.   

III.     ANALYSIS

          In this motion, GM urges that $1,491.41 of the $2,354.63 sought by Plaintiff in his memorandum of costs is not appropriate and should be stricken.   

          First, GM urges that the Court should strike the entire memorandum of costs as untimely. (Motion p. 4: 7-8.) Citing CRC 3.1700(a)(1), GM urges that the memorandum of costs was due on the earlier of 15 days after service of notice of entry of judgment by the clerk or date of service of written notice of dismissal; OR within 180 days after entry of judgment. (CRC 3.1700(a)(1).) Here, dismissal has not yet been entered, and there is no   judgment. (1/2/24 Minute Order [noting that parties represented that they were still attempting to draft a final dismissal to file with the Court.])  Accordingly, the Court declines to strike the memorandum of costs as untimely.

          Second, GM urges that $1,491.41 of the costs sought were not reasonably incurred. (Motion p. 6: 6.) Specifically, GM urges that because Plaintiff lost multiple motions to compel, these motions were frivolous and that Plaintiff “elected to pursue [these motions] knowing they would fail”. (Motion p. 6: 12-16.) GM moves to strike the $304.95 Plaintiff’s counsel seeks for filing fees for these motions and, $147.87 in process server fees for these motions.[1] The Court declines to strike these costs.  Regardless of the outcome of the hearing on the motions, the Court cannot conclude that they were unreasonable and unnecessary to the litigation.

          Next, GM seeks to strike the $167.10 sought for recovery of jury fees. GM urges that as the case never went to trial, it should not be responsible for Plaintiff’s payment of jury fees. The Court disagrees, as the jury fees were reasonably incurred to preserve the Plaintiff’s right to jury trial.

          Next, GM seeks to tax $147.10 sought for courtesy copies as “‘Courtesy’ copies, as the name implies, are not required and such expenses are unreasonable and excessive.” (Motion p. 6: 21-22.) The Court disagrees, as courtesy copies provided to the Court are helpful, and are not disallowed by CCP Section 1033.5(b) or Civil Code Section 1794(d). Indeed, in opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel declares he was told by the Court clerk that courtesy copies were necessary. (Manno Decl. ¶ 4.)

          Next, GM seeks to tax $162.74 sought for service of process on a dealership, as there is no dealership involved in this case. (Motion p. 6: 23-24.) However, in opposition, Plaintiff Torres clarifies that the Person Most Qualified Subpoena issued and served to Allen Gwynn Chevrolet was in anticipation of jury trial in this case. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that repairs to plaintiff's vehicle were performed at the dealership. (Manno Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff urges that the subpoena was necessary because “of GM’s position that it would not authenticate any dealership records, and because Defendant waited until the eleventh hour to settle this case with Plaintiff.” (Opposition p. 7: 9-10.) The Court declines to tax this cost, as it appears to be reasonably necessary to the litigation.

          Next, GM seeks to tax two anticipated costs: $500 for a court reporter to appear at the hearing on the motion for attorney fees and $61.65 in filing fees for a motion for attorney fees. As of the time of this hearing, March 27, 2024, the motion for attorney fees has been filed and granted in part, so the Court declines to tax the filing fees for that motion. However, the Court on its own investigation, discovered that no court reporter is noted as appearing in the February 14, 2024, hearing on the motion for attorney fees. Accordingly, the anticipated $500.00 cost for a reporter is improper and should be taxed.

          In sum, the Court taxes $500.00 of the $2,354.63 sought by Plaintiff. Accordingly, costs are awarded to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,854.63.

IV.     CONCLUSION AND ORDER

          The Court hereby grants Defendant’s motion to tax costs in part. Accordingly, costs are granted in the amount of $1,854.63.

          Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT