Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV35475, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV35475    Hearing Date: September 21, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:                 Motion for Order Taxing Costs and Striking Costs

Moving Party:          Plaintiff Jeremy Baker (“Baker”)

Resp. Party:             Defendants Out of the Blue Records, LLC, and Donte Liggins (“Defendants”)

Plaintiff Jeremy Baker’s Motion for Order Taxing Costs and Striking Costs is DENIED as untimely.

I.           BACKGROUND

On September 16, 2020, Plaintiff Jeremy Baker filed a verified complaint against Defendants Out of the Blue Records, LLC, Donte Liggins, and Nicole Prater alleging the following causes of action.

1.           Breach of Fiduciary Duty;

2.           Accounting;

3.           Conversion;

4.           Declaratory Relief

On November 19, 2020, Plaintiff Jeremy Baker filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants Out of the Blue Records, LLC, Donte Liggins, and Nicole Prater alleging the following causes of action.

1.           Breach of Fiduciary Duty

2.           Accounting

3.           Declaratory Relief

On July 18, 2022, the Court conducted a bench trial in the present action. The Court found in favor of Defendants Out of the Blue Records, LLC, and Donte Liggins on the breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, and declaratory relief causes of action. (Minute Order, July 18, 2022, p. 3.)

On August 24, 2022, Defendants filed a Judgment in the present case. The Judgment was signed the same day. The Court found that Defendants “are entitled to recover costs in this action from Mr. Baker, pursuant to the Memorandum of Costs filed by Defendants.” (Judgment, p. 1:12-13.)

On August 24, 2022, Baker moved the Court for an order “pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1700, taxing the costs of this action as follows: By reducing the following items claimed as costs in the Memorandum of Costs filed by OUT OF THE BLUE RECORDS, LLC.

1.           Deposition costs requested in Item Number 4, in the amount of $4,197.37, reduced to the amount of $0.00, on the grounds that the Plaintiff believes the costs claimed are excessive because the deposition and transcripts were unnecessary and not reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact. The Plaintiff further argues that the Defendant did not break down the deposition costs as required on the Memorandum of Costs nor attach an itemized statement to show a breakdown of the amount claimed for the deposition of Jeremey Baker.

2.           Court Ordered Transcripts costs requested in Item Number 9, in the amount of $1,521.25, reduced to the amount of $0.00, on the grounds that the costs claimed are not allowed pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5 since the transcripts on page 1 of the Memorandum of Costs states the Defendant is requesting $1,521.25 but on the Memorandum of Cost worksheet number 9 is silent to any costs claimed. This amount should further be denied in its entirety since the Court did not order any transcripts making this cost excessive, unnecessary, and not allowed per California Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5.

3.           Court Reporter Fees not claimed on the Memorandum of Costs but claimed on the Memorandum of Cost worksheet number 12a, in the amount of $1,521.25, reduced to the amount of $760.63, on the grounds that the costs claimed are excessive based upon the fact that the attorneys for the parties stipulated via email on or about July 12, 2022 to split the Court Reporter Fees with each party paying one-half of the fees. The Defendant now is requesting that Plaintiff pay the entire billed in the amount of $1,521.25 of the Court Reporter which would cause the Plaintiff to pay more than billed by the Court Reporter.” (Motion to Tax Costs, p. 1:22—2:16.)

On September 8, 2022, Defendants Out of the Blue Records and Donte Liggins opposed Baker’s motion to tax costs.

On September 13, 2022, Baker replied to Defendants’ opposition to his motion to tax costs.

II.        ANALYSIS

A.          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.” (CCP § 1032(b).)   

After judgment is entered, the prevailing party “who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a).) “The memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in this case.” (Id.)   

In turn, the losing party may file a motion to strike or tax costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b).) “Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum.” (Ibid.)   

B.          Discussion

Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs was served on Baker by email or electronic transmission on August 1, 2022. (Memorandum of Costs, Proof of Service, p. 5.) The Court finds that under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(1), any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs “must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum.” (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(1).) Further, since the cost memorandum was served electronically, "the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4).” (Id.) Under CCP § 1010.6(a)(4)(B), the period to file a motion to strike costs or to tax costs served electronically must be served and filed fifteen (15) days after service of the cost memorandum plus a two court day extension. (CCP § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).)

Fifteen days following service of the Memorandum of Costs was August 16, 2022. Two court days from August 16, 2022 is August 18, 2022. The instant motion for order taxing costs and striking costs was filed on August 24, 2022. The Court finds August 24, 2022 is six (6) days after the August 18, 2022 deadline to serve and file a motion to tax costs in this action.

Baker argues that the Court allowed Baker a filing extension for the motion to tax costs until August 22, 2022 and that the order to show cause regarding entry of judgment was continued until August 24, 2022. (Reply, p. 1:23-25.) The Court’s Minute Order of August 18, 2022 states the following: “On the Court's own motion, the Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Judgment scheduled for 08/18/2022 is continued to 08/24/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 34 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse to allow the parties to submit a revised proposed judgment.” (Minute Order, August 18, 2022, p. 1.)

There is no evidence of the Court granting an extension of time for Baker’s motion to tax costs. There is no evidence that the parties agreed to an extension of time for the filing of the present motion. (Sigall Decl., ¶ 2.)

III.     CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Jeremy Baker’s Motion for Order Taxing Costs and Striking Costs is DENIED as untimely.