Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: BC720428, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC720428    Hearing Date: March 2, 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 Tom and Victoria Mastorakos (collectively, Defendants) prevailed on their summary judgment motion against Plaintiff Bridget Banks (Plaintiff).  Defendants filed a memorandum of costs on November 29, 2022.  Plaintiff moves to tax Defendants’ claimed costs. 

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 objects to Defendants’ claimed costs for $2,244.65 in filing and motion fees, $287 in deposition costs, $2,708.34 in service of process fees, and $298.40 in fees for electronic filing or service.  Plaintiff generally objects to these costs as unsubstantiated.  In particular, Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed “to provide any back up documents to prove that the costs were incurred and the exact amount thereof.”  But Plaintiff fails to provide any authority for her position that Defendants are required in submitting their Memorandum of Costs to provide “back up documents” to substantiate the costs sought to be recovered. 

Although Defendants have not advanced specific documentation to support of these costs, Defendants are entitled to recover said costs under Section 1033.5.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subds. (a)(1), (a)(3)(A), (a)(4), (a)(14).)  Further, the Court finds that Defendants’ claimed costs appear to be proper on their face.  Thus, the burden falls upon Plaintiff to present evidence showing these costs to be unnecessary or unreasonable, which Plaintiff has not done so.    Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to Defendants’ claimed costs for filing and motion fees, deposition costs, electronic filing fees, and service of process fees are groundless.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to tax Defendants’ claimed costs.  The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling.