Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 20STCV21430, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV21430    Hearing Date: September 1, 2022    Dept: S27

1.     Background Facts and History of Litigation

Plaintiff, The People of the State of California, filed 20STCV21430 against Defendants, Edward and Charlene Riner on 6/08/20.  The complaint includes causes of action for public nuisance and narcotics abatement. 

On 8/26/21, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff.  On 3/09/22, the Court entered Judgment on the complaint.  On 3/25/22, Plaintiff gave notice of entry of judgment. 

2.     Motion to Tax Costs

a.     Memorandum of Costs

On 3/24/22, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs.  The memorandum seeks to recover a total of $32,372.36 in costs. 

b.     Parties’ Positions

Defendants, by way of this motion to tax costs, challenge only item 16 in the memorandum, which seeks to recover costs of investigation in the amount of $30,099.86.  Defendants contend Plaintiff has not shown that this amount is reasonable, and must provide evidence that the cost was actually and reasonably incurred.

Plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, contends Defendants caused Plaintiff to incur the cost, and Defendants cannot be heard to complain about it now.  Plaintiff provides documentary evidence that the cost was actually incurred, and contends it was also reasonable. 

c.     Law Governing Motion to Tax Costs

Allowable costs under CCP §1033.5 must be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation, and must be reasonable in amount.  An item not specifically allowable under §1033.5(a) nor prohibited under subdivision (b) may nevertheless be recoverable in the discretion of the court if they meet the above requirements (i.e., reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount).  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 Automotive Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-774.  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.  Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.  Ibid.  However, because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute, a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized. Ibid.  Discretion is abused only when, in its exercise, the court “exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.” 

d.     Analysis

The Court cannot, from the memorandum alone, determine whether the claimed cost of investigation was reasonable or not.  Defendants, therefore, by way of their moving papers, placed the item of cost in dispute, and shifted the burden to Plaintiff to show the cost was reasonably incurred. 

Plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, met that burden by submitted evidence that the cost was actually incurred.  The Court has reviewed the exhibits to the opposition papers, and finds all claimed costs were reasonable. 

Any reply to the opposition was due on or before 8/25/22.  The Court has not received timely reply papers, and will not consider late-filed reply papers.  Because the opposition is sufficient to meet the shifted burden to justify the costs claimed, and because there is no reply, the motion to tax costs is denied in its entirety. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.