Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV43580, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV43580    Hearing Date: April 12, 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

Plaintiff Arden Fletcher, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Adam Fletcher (Plaintiff) filed a request for dismissal on January 17, 2023, dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint and the entire action without prejudice.  Defendant Paria Hassouri, M.D. (Defendant) filed a Memorandum of Costs (MOC) on January 30, 2023. 

Plaintiff moves to tax Defendant’s claimed costs.  Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion.

ANALYSIS

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (b), “a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.”  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (a)(4), a 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.” 

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” Defendant, Defendant is the prevailing party in this action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)  Defendant is therefore entitled to recover costs.

Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s claimed costs, arguing that because this matter was dismissed without prejudice to give Plaintiff an opportunity to re-file the action.  According, Plaintiff contends that an award of costs would be punitive. 

In opposition, Defendant notes that there was no agreement by Defendant to waive costs in exchange for Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Complaint and entire action without prejudice.  Further, Plaintiff has failed to cite to authorities supporting Plaintiff’s grounds for seeking to tax the costs claimed by Defendant.  The Court agrees with Defendant. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to tax Defendant’s claimed costs set forth in the MOC.

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