Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: SC128899, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC128899    Hearing Date: October 14, 2022    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Sky Lift Aeronautics, et al., v. Lockheed Martin Corp., et al.

CASE NO.:                SC128899

MOTION:                  Motion to Tax Costs

HEARING DATE:   9/28/2022

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.)

Analysis

On June 22, 2022, Binns timely filed his memorandum of costs requesting $1,704.05. Plaintiffs move to tax item 1 and item 14.

Item no. 1

Binns claims $657.60 in costs related to filing and motion fees. Plaintiffs request that this amount be reduced by $123.30 to $534.30, as this amount was paid in sanctions related to discovery motions. Binns provides no opposition to this argument. Accordingly, the Court will tax this item by the requested amount of $123.30.

Item no. 14

Binns claims $1,046.45 in costs related to fees for electronic filing or service of documents through an electronic filing service provider. Plaintiffs move to tax this entire amount because the memorandum failed to provide any details of the charges and whether they were court ordered.  These costs are expressly allowed under section 1033.5(a)(14). Los Angeles Superior Court mandates electronic filing for all documents filed in civil cases for represented parties. (CRC, Rule 2.253(b); Local Rule 3.4(a).) Plaintiffs provide no specific reason or evidence that would tend to show that these costs are unreasonable or unrelated to electronic filing. Further, in opposition, Binns provides documentation in support of these fees. (Holmer Decl. Ex. 1.) Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs request to tax this item.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED in the amount of $123.30. Binns is therefore awarded costs of $1,580.75.