Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV00979, Date: 2024-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV00979    Hearing Date: April 29, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 4/29/24

Case #23CHCV00979 (related to 22CHCV00856)

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

Motion filed on 10/27/23.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ha Hoang Nguyen

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Amy Jam and Mohsen Haddad

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order amending the judgment entered on 8/15/23 pursuant to CCP 187. 

RULING:

SUMMARY OF ACTION  & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On 4/7/23, Plaintiff Ha Hoang Nguyen (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Amy Jam and Mohsen Haddad (collectively, Defendants) for unlawful detainer. 

On 8/15/23, after a court trial, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff awarding Plaintiff possession of the disputed real property, holdover damages of $62,500.00 and costs of $750.00 for a total monetary judgment of $63,250.00.

On 8/30/23, Plaintiff filed and served a memorandum of costs in the amount of $14,176.75 which Defendants did not challenge by way of a motion to tax or strike costs.

On 10/27/23, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order amending the judgment entered on 8/15/23 pursuant to CCP 187 to reflect the cost bill of $14,176.75 for a total judgment of $76,676.75. 

On 1/23/24, Defendants filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings based on the bankruptcy filing by Defendants.

Defendants have not filed an opposition to the instant motion.     

ANALYSIS

CRC 3.1700(a)(1) provides:

“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. The memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case.”

CRC 3.1700(b)(1) provides:

“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).”

CRC 3.1700(b)(4) provides:

“After the time has passed for a motion to strike or tax costs or for determination of that motion, the clerk must immediately enter the costs on the judgment.”

Based on the foregoing, if the Judgment entered on 8/15/23 did not already award costs in the amount of $750.00, the Court would find that Plaintiff is entitled to an order amending the Judgment to include the $14,176.75 in prejudgment costs included in Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs filed and served on 8/30/23 which Defendants did not challenge within the time required well before they filed for bankruptcy protection.

The motion claims that the 8/15/23 Judgment included an “initial estimate” of costs ($750.00) related to service and filing fees and claims that there were many more costs associated with trial which were reflected in the memorandum of costs.  (See Motion, p.4:10-15).  However, the Judgment does not indicate that the $750.00 in costs awarded were merely an estimate that could be augmented by a subsequent memorandum of costs.  (See 8/15/23 Judgment).  Nor does Plaintiff provide any authority which allows a party to provide one amount for costs at the time of Judgment and then drastically increase that amount by way of a later filed cost memorandum.  Plaintiff’s counsel also does not explain why the Judgment did not leave the costs to be entirely determined by a subsequently filed cost memorandum rather than include only a small fraction of such costs in the Judgment.  Further, it is not clear whether the $454.22 for filing and motion fees included in the memorandum of costs was included in the $750.00 already awarded for costs which purportedly included estimated costs related to service and filing fees. 

CONCLUSION

The Court finds that because an opposition to this motion was due after Defendants’ bankruptcy filing, the hearing on the motion is stayed.  Once the bankruptcy is lifted, Plaintiff’s counsel must contact the Court to reschedule the hearing on the motion at least 30 days thereafter.

At least 16 court days before the rescheduled hearing date, Plaintiff must file and serve a supplemental brief providing authority which allows a party to claim additional costs via a cost memorandum after costs were already awarded in the Judgment.

Any opposition to the motion will be due at least 9 court days before the rescheduled hearing date and any reply will be due at least 5 court days before the continued hearing date.