Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV08535, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV08535    Hearing Date: March 24, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Defendants Barrington Pacific, LLC and Douglas Emmett Management, LLC (collectively, Defendants) prevailed on their summary judgment motion against Plaintiff Mercedes Barahona (Plaintiff).  Defendants filed a Memorandum of Costs (MOC) on January 6, 2023.  Plaintiff moves to tax Defendants’ claimed costs.  Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a) sets forth items that are allowable as costs.  Allowable costs under Section 1033.5 must be “reasonably necessary to the conduct of this litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation” and “reasonable in amount.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subds. (c)(2), (3).)  “Items not mentioned in [Section 1033.5] and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court’s discretion.” (Id., subd. (c)(4).)

On a motion to tax, “[i]f 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. 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.  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.  However, because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized.”  (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774, internal citations omitted.)  “The court’s first determination, therefore, is whether the statute expressly allows the item, and whether it appears proper on its face.  If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show them to be unnecessary or unreasonable.”  (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131, internal citations omitted.)  The objecting party does not meet this burden by arguing that the costs were not necessary or reasonable, but must present evidence and prove that the costs are not recoverable.  (Litt v Med. Ctr. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1224; Seever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557.)

As Plaintiff did not “recover any relief against” Defendants, Defendants are the prevailing parties in this action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)  Defendants are therefore entitled to recover their costs.

Plaintiff first objects to Defendants’ claimed costs in Item 1 of Defendants’ MOC, totaling $2,185.07 in filing and motion fees.  Plaintiff first argues that Defendants have failed to attach information regarding additional filing and motion fees, as indicated in the MOC in “Attachment 1g.”  Plaintiff further argues that the costs listed in Item 1 include the costs of courtesy copies and photocopies which are not recoverable.  Finally, Plaintiff asserts that some of the costs in Item 1 are duplicative of those listed in Item 14 for electronic filing or service. 

In opposition, Defendants have advanced documentation to support the costs included in Item 1.  (Declaration of Cynthia Coulter Mulvihill, ¶ 2, Exhibit A.)  This documentation clarifies each motion and filing fee that Defendants’ are asking reimbursement for, which in summation equals $2,185.07, and further distinguishes these costs from those listed in Item 14.  Defendants further explain that they are entitled to recover the costs of the listed courtesy copies because of the requirement of some judges and departments to provide a printed copy of every court filing, including motions and pleadings with attachments such as declarations and exhibits in excess of 26 pages.  Here, Defendants provided the Court courtesy copies of the two MSJs because they were both in excess of 26 pages and thus were “reasonably necessary to the conduct of this litigation . . . .”  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2).)  Moreover, per the Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective October 10, 2022 [Filed 09/20/2022], ¶ 9C, “Courtesy copies are required for . . . Motions for, Oppositions to, and Replies to Oppositions to Motions for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication.”   Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection to costs listed in Item 1 in MOC. 

Plaintiff next objects to costs within Defendants’ MOC listed under “Other”, which include (1) Remote Appearance Audio Fees; (2) Interpreter Fees/Cancellations; and (3) Court Reporter MSJ, and total $1,135.  In opposition, Defendants argue that these costs were reasonably necessary to the conduct of this litigation. The Court finds Defendants’ claimed costs for “Other” are neither permitted or required by statute, nor necessary to the litigation.  Accordingly, the Court sustains Plaintiff’s objection to items listed under “Other” in the MOC.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies in part Plaintiff’s motion to tax Defendants’ claimed costs under Item 1 of the MOC, totaling $2,185.07, and grants in part Plaintiff’s motion to tax Defendants’ claimed costs under “Other,” totaling $1,135.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file proof of service of such.