Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: SC129035, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC129035    Hearing Date: October 3, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Large, et al., v. Tunnel Post Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                SC129035

MOTION:                  Motion to Tax Costs

HEARING DATE:   10/3/2023

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 an 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

Defendants served a Memorandum of Costs seeking $36,206.32 in costs. Plaintiff properly objects to each item of costs.

The majority of these costs, $27,987.18, were incurred for filing and motion fees. Defendants filed 98 documents in this case, including four motions and six answers. The Court finds it improbable that Defendants incurred such high costs for mere filing and motion fees. Since these costs are properly objected to by Plaintiff, Defendants have the burden to show the validity of the costs. Defendants have failed to oppose the motion to tax, and thus failed to meet this burden.  Based upon evidence submitted by Plaintiff, the proper costs for this item would be $2,850.

Defendants also request $4,291.26 of costs in court reporter fees. Parties may recover costs for “[c]ourt reporter fees as established by statute.” (CCP § 1033.5(a)(11).) Reviewing the record, the Court also finds this improbable that Defendants incurred such high costs for court reporter fees alone. Defendants may be seeking to recover costs for reporter transcripts, which is prohibited unless the transcripts were ordered by the court. (CCP § 1033.5(b)(5).) There is no order from this Court related to the ordering of transcripts. Thus, this item of costs appears facially improper. Defendants have failed to oppose the motion to tax, and thus failed to meet their burden to justify the costs. The costs will therefore be taxed in the full amount.

Defendants request $3,777.88 in costs for the printing of trial exhibits. However, this case never went to trial. Plaintiff notes that Defendants shared less than 2000 pages of trial exhibits with Plaintiff. (Fowler Dec. ¶ 9.) The Court therefore finds it unlikely that Defendants incurred $3,777.88 to print trial exhibits. Defendants have failed to oppose the motion to tax, and thus failed to meet their burden to justify this item. The costs will therefore be taxed in the full amount.

Accordingly, the motion to tax is GRANTED.  Plaintiff to prepare a proposed order.