Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV13048, Date: 2023-08-25 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: 20STCV13048    Hearing Date: August 25, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs

Moving Party:  Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant LD Painting Renovation, Inc. 

Resp. Party:    Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant Royal Garden Apts., Inc.

The Court GRANTS the Motion in part. The costs are TAXED by $3,475.00. Costs are AWARDED in favor of Royal and against LD in the total amount of $1,417.65.

BACKGROUND:

On April 2, 2020, Ferguson Enterprises, LLC filed its Complaint against Royal Garden Apts., Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank on causes of action arising from a mechanic’s lien.

On May 20, 2020, Royal Garden Apts., Inc. filed its Cross-Complaint against LD Painting & Renovation, Inc.

On July 30, 2020, by request of Ferguson Enterprises, LLC, the Clerk’s Office dismissed without prejudice JP Morgan Chase Bank from the Complaint.

On November 30, 2020, by request of Ferguson Enterprises, LLC, the Clerk’s Office dismissed with prejudice the entire Complaint.

On July 26, 2021, LD Painting Renovation, Inc. filed its Cross-Complaint against Royal Garden Apts., Inc.

On June 2, 2023, the Court held a non-jury trial in this matter. On both Cross-Complaints, the Court found in favor of Royal Garden Apts., Inc. (“Royal”) and against LD Painting Renovation, Inc. (“LD”). Regarding Royal’s Cross-Complaint, the Court found in favor of Royal in the amount of $20,178.45.

On June 16, 2023, the Court entered Judgment in this matter.

On July 6, 2023, Royal filed its Judicial Council Form MC-010, Memorandum of Costs. Later that day, Royal filed another Memorandum of Costs.

On July 14, 2023, LD filed its Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs. LD concurrently filed its Proposed Order.

On July 31, 2023, Royal filed its Opposition to the Motion.

On August 17, 2023, LD filed its Reply regarding the 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).

II.        Discussion

A.      The Parties’ Arguments

In both of its Memoranda of Costs, Royal claims $4,892.65 in costs, which consist of:

(1)       $573.40 in filing and motion fees;

(2)       $150.00 in jury fees;

(3)       $550.00 in deposition costs;

(4)       $40.00 in service fees;

(5)       $121.39 in attorney’s fees;

(6)       $132.86 in electronic filing or service fees; and

(7)       $3,325.00 in other costs.

Despite the title of its Motion, LD only moves the Court to reduce costs from $4,892.65 to $896.26. (Motion, p. 4:3–4.) LD argues: (1) that there were no depositions in this case; (2) that there is no basis for attorney’s fees; and (3) that there is no basis or explanation for what the “other” costs are. (Id. at p. 3:16–24.)

Royal opposes the Motion, arguing: (1) that the burden of proof is on LD here; (2) that the deposition costs should not be stricken because Royal paid $550.00 for a certificate of non-appearance for a deposition of Royal’s person most knowledgeable; (3) that Royal mistakenly listed the costs for models, enlargements, and photocopies as attorney’s fees, which was corrected in the later-filed Memorandum of Costs; (4) that the “other” costs are mediation costs, which the Court should allow Royal to recover; and (5) that the Parties did not meet and confer before LD filed the Motion. (Opposition, pp. 2:1, 2:15–16, 3:10–11, 3:21–22, 5:11–12.)

In its Reply, LD argues: (1) that the deposition costs were later reimbursed; and (2) that the Court should not exercise its discretion in awarding mediation costs. (Reply, p. 2:4–23.) LD does not make any further arguments regarding the costs for models, enlargements, and photocopies.

B.      Discussion

The Court agrees with LD’s arguments regarding mediation costs which are not coverable. Royal has not pointed to any statute or rule of court that requires a meet and confer for a motion to tax costs. LD meets its burden here, and the Court taxes the mediation costs.

The Court agrees with Royal’s argument regarding the models, enlargements, and photocopies. Those costs were incurred, and they are recoverable. Although Royal mistakenly listed these costs as attorney’s fees on the cover sheet of both Memoranda of Costs, the later-filed Memorandum of Costs did have these costs properly listed in the attached worksheet.

The Court also agreed with Royal’s argument regarding the deposition. 

On July 21, 2021, Royal filed its Notice of Withdrawal of Jury Trial and Request for Return of $150 Posted Per California Code of Civil Procedure Section 631.3; and on July 27, 2021, the Court ordered the refund of the jury fees. There is no basis for a double recovery of the $150.00 in jury fees and that amount shall be taxed.

The Court GRANTS in part the Motion. The costs are TAXED by $3,475.00. Costs are AWARDED in favor of Royal and against LD in the total amount of $1,417.65.

III.     Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the Motion in part. The costs are TAXED by $3,475.00. Costs are AWARDED in favor of Royal and against LD in the total amount of $1,417.65 as indicted below.