Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: SC121803, Date: 2024-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC121803    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Geringer Capital Inc., v. Blue Rider Finance, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                SC121803

MOTION:                  Motion to Tax Costs

HEARING DATE:   4/17/2024

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. (Ibid.)

            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 state why each item is objectionable. (CRC rule 3.1700(b)(2).) Any grounds not stated are waived. (Boyd v. Oscar Fisher Co. (1989) 210 Cal. App. 3d 368, 383.)

Analysis

Cross-Defendants Geringer Capital, Inc., Robert Geringer and Tricycle Entertainment, Inc. move to strike Cross-Complainant Blue Rider Finance Inc.’s memorandum of costs. Specifically, Cross-Defendants object to item no. 4 ($2,763.86 for Printing and Copying of Briefs) because such costs on appeal are not authorized by California Rules of Court (CRC), rule 8.278(d)(1)(E). Under this rule, a prevailing party on appeal is entitled to “The cost to print and reproduce any brief, including any petition for rehearing or review, answer, or reply[.]” However, based on the invoices, these costs are not for the printing or reproduction of briefs, but instead costs associated with a legal services firm, One Legal, to handle word processing for the briefs and other items unrelated to printing/reproduction of briefs. (See Kolber Decl., Ex. A.) As these are not generally recoverable costs, Cross-Complainant has the burden of demonstrating why they are entitled to these costs. Cross-Complainant fails to oppose the motion, and therefore fails to meet this burden.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.