Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV01992, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01992    Hearing Date: July 16, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Gabsi, et al., v. Boutboul

CASE NO.:                23SMCV01992

MOTION:                  Motion to Tax/Strike Costs

HEARING DATE:   7/16/2024

Legal Standard

In general, the “prevailing party” is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs for suit in any action or proceeding. (CCP § 1032(b); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606.) “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. (CCP § 1032 (a)(4).) 

“Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” (CCP § 1033.5(c)(2).) “If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 761, 774.) On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. (Id.) 

Analysis

Plaintiffs Rudy and Carole Gabsi move to tax costs claimed by Defendant Yoni Boutboul.  The memorandum of costs claims $ 1,050.70 in costs. Plaintiff objects to a portion of item no. 1 (filing and motion fees) and the entirety of item no. 16 (other costs).

As to item no. 1, Plaintiffs note that Defendant claims the initial filing fee of $435.00 twice. The memo breaks down the costs as follows: a) $508.61 for first paper fee and demurrer hearing reservation fees; b) $461.17 for a motion to strike; and c) $13.12 for a “Demurrer.” The Court finds Defendant’s claim for these costs are internally inconsistent. Indeed, Defendant twice claims the initial filing fees as costs. Defendant provides a declaration from counsel, claiming that he was charged twice for both his “Demurrer with Motion to Strike” and for his “Motion to Strike (not initial pleading).” Defendant only supplies one reservation receipt for $508.61 which accurately reflects the memorandum. (Greene Decl., Ex A.) The court’s records reflect that only one hearing for the Demurrer with Motion to Strike was scheduled and removed, which bears this reservation number. This amount includes the $13.12 for credit card fees separately claimed in the memo. (Id.) The supplied other receipt shows costs of $437.25, which does not reflect any of the amounts identified in the memorandum. (Id., Ex. B.) Thus, the Court is persuaded that only the claim of $508.61 is accurate.

As to item no. 16, Defendant claims costs for downloading a document from the LASC online docket. Such costs are not expressly allowed. (CCP § 1033.5(a).) Further, the Court does not find downloading a document from the LASC website to be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation. (CCP §1033.5(c).) Therefore, the entirety of item 16 will be stricken.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Item 16 is stricken. Item 1 is reduced to $508.61.