Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22STLC02178, Date: 2024-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC02178, Date: 2024-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC02178 Hearing Date: September 9, 2024 Dept: 26

Healthcare Medical Clinic of Pomona, Inc., et al. v. Perez, et al.

MOTION TO TAX COSTS

(CRC Rule 3.1700; CCP § 1033.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Healthcare Medical Clinic of Pomona, Inc. and Yoodiy Gonzales’ Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED. THE COURT TAXES COST ITEM NOS. 1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 13, AND 16 FROM THE MEMORANDUM OF COSTS FILED ON MAY 29, 2024.

ANALYSIS:

On April 1, 2022, Plaintiff Healthcare Medical Clinic of Pomona (“Plaintiff HMCP”) filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants Norma Perez and Luis Nava (“Defendants”). The First Amended Complaint, filed on July 21, 2022, added Yoodiy Gonzales (“Plaintiff Gonzales”) as a plaintiff. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 12, 2022. On December 1, 2023, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice.

Defendants filed a memorandum of costs on May 29, 2024. Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Tax Costs on June 18, 2024. Defendants filed an opposition on August 27, 2024 and Plaintiffs replied on August 30, 2024. While Plaintiffs point out that Defendants’ opposition was untimely filed and served, the Court exercises its discretion to consider the papers. Plaintiffs were able to provide a substantive reply and were not prejudiced by the untimely opposition.

Discussion

“A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1).) No notice of the entry of dismissal is on file with the Court, although Defendants were served with the request for entry of dismissal on December 1, 2023. 180 days after the entry of dismissal was May 29, 2024, the date on which the memorandum of costs was filed and served by mail.

“Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. If the cost memorandum was served electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4).” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700, subd. (b)(1).) The instant Motion to Tax Costs was timely filed and served 15 regular days, plus three court days, later.

First, Plaintiffs move to tax the entire memorandum of costs on the grounds that the parties had an agreement whereby Plaintiffs would dismiss this action in exchange for a waiver of costs. (Motion, Jurczak Decl., ¶12.) No evidence of this settlement agreement, aside from the hearsay declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel, is provided in support of the Motion. In the opposition, defense counsel also disputes that the parties had any agreement to waive costs. (Opp., Moorhead Decl., ¶14.) The Court finds Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a basis to strike the entire Memorandum of Costs.

Alternatively, Plaintiffs move to tax certain itemized costs set forth in the Memorandum of Costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 on the grounds that they were not “reasonably necessary” to this action. (Citing Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c).) “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 were not reasonable or necessary. 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.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) Plaintiffs argue that much of the costs sought in this action were actually incurred in a separate action between the parties, in which Defendant Perez alleged wrongful termination against Plaintiffs: Norma Perez v. Healthcare Medical Clinic of Pomona, Inc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20STCV35487. Plaintiffs point out that the Memorandum of Costs seeks costs for jury food and lodging, depositions, court reporters, and interpreters, despite the fact that this action involved no discovery and did not go to trial. (Motion, Jurczak Decl., ¶¶5-9.) Instead, these costs were incurred in LASC Case No. 20STCV35487. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs have properly objected to all the costs sought in the Memorandum of Costs, thereby shifting the burden of proof to Defendants to demonstrate that the costs stated therein were, in fact, reasonably necessary to this action.

In opposition, Defendants concede that the costs in the Memorandum of Costs were incurred in LASC Case No. 20STCV35487. They make an extensive argument that because that action was closely related to the instant action, the costs incurred therein are recoverable here. First, no law is cited by Defendants for this proposition. (Opp., p. 6:2-3.) Without relevant legal authority, the Court declines to adopt Defendants’ position that costs incurred in one action can be recovered in another. Second, despite defense counsel’s contention that “it would have been obvious to any reasonable attorney that [LASC Case No. 20STCV35487] would likely resolve all of the issues in this case,” neither party filed a notice of related case with respect to LASC Case No. 20STCV35487 in this case. Likewise, no notice of related case filed in LASC Case No. 20STCV35487 regarding this action. Instead, the attorneys allowed the cases to proceed in parallel for more than two years. Defendants, therefore, have not demonstrated that the costs set forth in the Memorandum of Costs, which were incurred in LASC Case No. 20STCV35487, can be recovered in this litigation.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.