Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 19SMCV02066, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV02066    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Maatuk v. Solomon

CASE NO.:                19SMCV02066

MOTION:                  Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike or Tax Costs 

date:                        01/19/2022                 

Legal standard

A prevailing party in litigation may recover costs, including but not limited to filing fees. (Code Civ. Proc., §1033.5(a)(1).) “A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after [1] the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or [2] the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or [3] within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(a).)  “The time provisions relating to the filing of a memorandum of costs, while not jurisdictional, are mandatory.” (Sanabria v. Embrey (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 422, 426 [quoting Hydratec, Inc. v. Sun Valley 260 Orchard & Vineyard Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 924, 929].)

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700, a party may file and serve a motion to tax costs listed in a memorandum of costs. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b).) Under Rule 3.1700(b)(1), “Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. If the cost memorandum was served electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4).”  A verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services therein listed were necessarily incurred. (Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 266.)  A party seeking to tax costs must provide evidence to rebut this prima facie showing.  (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266.) Mere statements unsupported by facts are insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing that costs were necessarily incurred. (Id.)

Analysis

Plaintiff seeks to tax $2,141.05 in videotaping costs, and $3,761.00 for transcript costs. Plaintiff argues that the videotapes were not used for trial, and thus were not reasonably necessary to conduct the litigation. Plaintiff notes that the Court did not order transcripts, and as such, the transcript costs are not generally recoverable.

Plaintiff properly puts these costs at issue. The burden is therefore on the claimant to show that these costs were reasonable or necessary. As there is no opposition, Defendant fails to meet this burden. Thus, the motion to tax is GRANTED as requested. Costs are allowed in the amount of $1,314.30.