Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 22AHCV00425, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00425    Hearing Date: October 3, 2023    Dept: P

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.        INTRODUCTION

          Plaintiff Kenneth Powell (Powell) sued Defendant General Motors, LLC (GM) for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civ. Code §§1792 et seq. The litigation concerns Powell’s purchase of a 2019 Cadillac XTS. In July 2023, GM’s motion for summary judgment was granted. GM timely filed a cost bill.

          Before the Court is Powell’s motion to strike and/or tax GM’s costs. The motion to tax is not well taken, and it is therefore denied.       

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

          Code Civ. Proc. §1032(b) provides that a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs. Section 1033.5 itemizes those costs that are recoverable.

          Civ. Code §1794(d) provides for an award of costs and expenses, including attorney fees, to a prevailing buyer in a Song-Beverly Act action. This provision allows for an award of attorney fees only to buyers. However, prevailing sellers can still recover costs. Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 985 holds that Civ. Code §1794(d) is not an exception to Code Civ. Proc. §1032(b).

          California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(1) requires that a motion to tax costs must be filed within 15 days of service of the cost bill. Rule 3.1700(b)(2) provides, “Unless objection is made to the entire cost memorandum, the motion to strike or tax costs must refer to each item objected to by the same number and appear in the same order as the corresponding cost item claimed on the memorandum of costs and must state why the item is objectionable.”      

          III.     DISCUSSION

          Powell argues that GM’s cost bill should be stricken because GM is not entitled to recover its costs at all. Powell’s counsel urge that Civ. Code §1794(d) only provides for such recovery to buyers. That argument is simply contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in Murillo. The motion to strike is not well taken, and it is denied.

          Failing an order striking the memorandum of costs, Powell also seeks to tax the only two items contained in the cost bill: Item 1- Filing and Motion Fees in the amount of $1,054, which are expressly recoverable pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5(a)(1); and Item 14 – Electronic Filing in the amount of $151, which are expressly recoverable under Section 1033.5(a)(14) and Los Angeles Superior Court rule 3.4.

          Powell argues that GM offers “no justification” for these costs and “no receipts, invoices, or other documentation establishing its accuracy.” It is not GM’s job to do so in its initial filing:

          “‘If the items in a cost memorandum appear proper, the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence the expenses were necessarily incurred by the’ prevailing party. (Citation.) To controvert this evidence, the burden is on the objecting party to present evidence showing the contrary. (Ibid.)” Whatley-Miller v. Cooper (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1103, 1115.

          As Powell has not met his burden of presenting any evidence showing either cost is invalid, unreasonable, or otherwise not recoverable, the motion is denied.                      

IV.     ORDER

           Powell’s motion to strike or tax costs is denied. GM’s recoverable costs of $1,205 will be added to the judgment entered August 14, 2023.

GM is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT