Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV23817, Date: 2022-10-24 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: 20STCV23817    Hearing Date: October 24, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:                 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Moving Party:          Defendant City of Los Angeles   

Resp. Party:            Plaintiff Brenda Baca

The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs. The Court taxes $2,547.92 in costs, and GRANTS Plaintiff her costs in the amount $25,877.03.

BACKGROUND:

On June 24, 2020, Plaintiff Brenda Baca filed her Complaint against Defendant City of Los Angeles on causes of action for: (1) sex/gender harassment in a hostile work environment in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; and (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation from occurring or continuing in violation of FEHA.

On July 29, 2022, after a four-day jury trial, the jury found the following: (1) 10 jurors to 2 jurors found in favor of Plaintiff on her harassment claim; (2) 10 jurors to 2 jurors found in favor of Plaintiff on her retaliation claim; and (3) all 12 jurors found Plaintiff suffered damages of $2,500,000.00. 

On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expert Witness Fees (“Motion for Attorneys’ Fees”).

On September 6, 2022, Defendant filed its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Opposition”).

Also on September 6, 2022, Defendant filed its Motion to Tax Costs.

On September 20, 2022, the Court awarded Plaintiff $997,690.00 in attorneys’ fees. The Court withheld its ruling on costs so that Plaintiff could have an opportunity to respond to Defendant’s motion.

On September 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Opposition to the Motion to Tax Costs.

No reply or other response has been filed.

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).)

“When any county, city, district, or other public agency or entity, or any officer thereof in his official capacity, is a party, costs shall be awarded against it on the same basis as against any other party and, when awarded, must be paid out of the treasury thereof.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1029.)

II.        Discussion

Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs only involves the following subset of items: (1) expert witness fees; (2) trial transcripts; and (3) mediation costs. Objections to any other costs have thus been waived.

Defendant argues: (1) that expert witness fees are not allowable unless ordered by the Court; (2) that the Court did not order any trial transcripts and thus they are not recoverable; and (3) that mediation fees are not recoverable. (Motion, p. 4:5­–6, 4:9–10; 4:15–16.)

Plaintiff makes multiple arguments for each of these costs, including: (1) that Government Code § 12965, subdivision (c)(6) now expressly authorizes the award of expert witness fees; (2) that California Rules of Court rule 2.956, subdivision (c) allows trial transcript’s to be recoverable as part of costs; and (3) that mediation fees may be recoverable here because the Court issued a Minute Order dated November 19, 2020 that directed lead counsel to meet and confer, which led to a mediation. (Opposition, pp. 3:1–25; 4:14–21, 5:9–15.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s arguments regarding expert witness fees and trial transcripts.  However, the Court agrees that the mediation costs are not recoverable.  Although the Court ordered the parties to meet-and-confer regarding mediation, the Court did not order mediation.

III.     Conclusion

The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs. The Court taxes $2,547.92 in costs, and GRANTS Plaintiff her costs in the amount $25,877.03, as indicated below: