Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 19STCV36480, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling
The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.
Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: 19STCV36480 Hearing Date: April 3, 2024 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, Tax Costs
Moving Party: Defendants Big Bus Tours Los Angeles, Inc. and Open Top Sightseeing USA
Resp. Party: Plaintiff Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc.
The Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, Tax Costs is DENIED.
PRELIMINARY COMMENT:
Although Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs, Defendants only request that “the Court strike or tax” the $18,488.89 in costs associated with “Item 12 – Models, Enlargements and Photocopies of Exhibits.” (Motion, p. 2:7-12.) In other words, this is not actually a motion to strike the Memorandum of Costs, it is simply a motion to strike or tax Item 12. Therefore, the Court will only address the costs associated with Item 12 – Models, Enlargements and Photocopies of Exhibits.
BACKGROUND:
On October 11, 2019, Plaintiff Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc. filed its Complaint against Defendants Big Bus Tours Los Angeles, Inc., Open Top Sightseeing USA, and Chris Schlesinger on causes of action arising from allegedly unfair competition.
On June 8, 2022, the Court found related cases 19STCV36480 and 22STCV14150, and the Court designated 19STCV36480 as the lead case.
On August 31, 2022, the Court granted summary adjudication in favor of Defendants Big Bus Tours Los Angeles, Inc. and Open Top Sightseeing USA (“Defendants”) and against Plaintiff regarding the third cause of action (intentional interference with prospective economic advantage) and fourth cause of action (negligent interference with prospective economic advantage) in the Complaint.
From January 8 to 12, 2024, the Court held a jury trial in this matter. The Court admitted hundreds of exhibits throughout trial.
On January 12, 2024, the Jury found: (1) for Defendants and against Plaintiff on the cause of action for interference with the Vector contract; (2) for Plaintiff and against Defendants on the cause of action for interference with the LPG contract, with damages in the amount of $720,000.00; (3) for Defendants and against Plaintiff on the cause of action for unfair business practices; and (4) that there was not clear and convincing evidence that Defendants acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.
On February 5, 2024, the Court entered Judgment in this matter.
On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Judicial Council Form MC-010, Memorandum of Costs (Summary).
On March 7, 2024, Defendants filed their Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, Tax Costs (“Motion”).
On March 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Opposition to the Motion.
On March 26, 2024, Defendants filed their Reply in support of their Motion.
ANALYSIS:
I. Legal Standard
“Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b).)
Prevailing parties seeking to claim costs must comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a), and parties seeking to contest costs must comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b).
The Court separately considers each category of contested costs, including: (1) whether they are specifically allowable or specifically prohibited; (2) whether they were incurred (irrespective of whether or not paid); (3) whether they were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation; and (4) whether they are reasonable in amount. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1033.5, subds. (a), (b), and (c)(1)–(3).
“Items not mentioned in this section and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court’s discretion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(4); see also Foothill-De Anza Cmty. Coll. Dist. v. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 30.)
II. Discussion
A. The Parties’ Arguments
Plaintiff claims $70,516.53 in costs, which comprises of:
(1) $875.00 in filing and motion fees;
(2) $1,336.48 in jury fees;
(3) $24,736.70 in deposition costs;
(4) $1,010.00 in service costs;
(5) $21,807.55 in court reporter fees;
(6) $18,488.89 in models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits; and
(7) $2,261.91 in electronic filing or service fees.
(MC-010, p. 1.)
Defendants move the Court to strike the Memorandum of Costs or, in the alternative, issue an order taxing costs. (Motion, p. 6:9–11.) Defendants specifically points to the costs for models, enlargements, and photocopies as “only approximately 26% of the exhibits contained in the parties’ joint exhibit books” were used. (Id. at p. 5:19–22.)
Plaintiff disagree, arguing: (1) that the exhibits were used at trial; and (2) that even if they weren’t used at trial, they are allowable in the Court’s discretion. (Opposition, p. 4:4–21.)
Defendants reiterate their arguments in their Reply.
B. Discussion
“Models, the enlargements of exhibits and photocopies of exhibits, and the electronic presentation of exhibits, including costs of rental equipment and electronic formatting, may be allowed if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(13).
“Postage, telephone, and photocopying charges, except for exhibits” are specifically not allowable as costs, except when expressly authorized by law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (b)(3).)
Hundreds of exhibits were admitted at trial; most were admitted at the beginning of the trial pursuant to a stipulation of both parties. The Court finds that as a whole, these models, enlargements, and photocopies reasonably aided the jury. Further, as indicated above, both parties stipulated to the admission of the vast majority of these exhibits. Had Defendant prevailed at trial, it no doubt would have requested costs for its exhibits; the Court would likely have allowed such costs.
The Court allows all of the costs claimed for models, enlargements, and photocopies.
III. Conclusion
The Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, Tax Costs is DENIED.