Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV31058, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31058     Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion to Tax Costs

Moving Party: Plaintiff KL Fenix Corporation

Resp. Party:    Defendant KLF Logistics, Inc.

The Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED in part. Defendant KLF Logistics, Inc.’s costs are TAXED by $2,100.00. Defendant KLF Logistics, Inc. is AWARDED $14,609.68 in costs.

BACKGROUND:

        On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff KL Fenix Corporation filed its Complaint against Defendant KLF Logistics, Inc. and Steve Chang on causes of action for ejectment, breach of lease, and injunctive relief.

        On February 2, 2024, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office dismissed without prejudice Defendant Steve Chang from the Complaint.

        On February 15, 2024, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office dismissed without prejudice the entire Complaint.

        On February 16, 2024, Defendant Steve Chang filed Judicial Council Form MC-010, Memorandum of Costs (Summary) (“Chang Memorandum”).

        On February 23, 2024, Defendant KLF Logistics, Inc. filed Judicial Council Form MC-010, Memorandum of Costs (Summary) (“KLF Memorandum”).

        On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Tax Costs, which regards the KLF Memorandum. In support of its Motion to Tax Costs, Plaintiff concurrently filed Declaration of Yalan Zheng.

        On March 21, 2024, Defendant KLF Logistics, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed its Opposition to the Motion to Tax Costs.

        On April 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Reply in support of the Motion to Tax Costs. Plaintiff concurrently filed its Proposed Order.

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

Defendant claims $16,709.68 in costs, which are comprised of:

(1)       $452.40 in filing and motion fees;

(2)       $9,452.85 in deposition costs;

(3)       $123.00 in service costs;

(4)       $45.00 in witness fees;

(5)       $2,847.25 in interpreter fees;

(6)       $40.00 in electronic filing or service fees; and

(7)       $3,749.18 in “other” costs.

(KLF Memorandum, p. 1.)

        Plaintiff moves the Court to tax: (1) $2,100.00 in deposition fees for the depositions of Sarah Lee and Steve Chang; (2) $1,196.00 in a deposition room fee; (3) $159.69 for a hotel fee; and (4) $2,100.00 in mediation fees. (Motion to Tax Costs, pp. 3:22, 4:22, 5:6, 5:14.)

        Defendant disagrees, arguing that all of these costs were necessary and reasonable. (Opposition, p. 3:4–6, 5:8–10, 5:1–2, 6:5, 7:1–2.)

B.      The Deposition Costs

1.      Legal Standard

“The following items are allowable as costs under Section 1032: . . . Taking, video recording, and transcribing necessary depositions, including an original and one copy of those taken by the claimant and one copy of depositions taken by the party against whom costs are allowed.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(3)(A).)

2.      Discussion

The deposition costs, including those for copying the transcripts and the room to allow the transcripts to be taken, are allowable. After considering the arguments made by both sides, the Court finds that these costs were reasonable and will allow them.

C.      The Hotel Costs

1.      Legal Standard

“The following items are allowable as costs under Section 1032: . . . Travel expenses to attend depositions.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(3)(C).)

2.      Discussion

The hotel fee was incurred in relation with taking a deposition. Thus, this cost is allowable. After considering the arguments made by both sides, the Court finds that this cost was reasonable and will allow it.

D.      The Mediation Costs

Mediation is not a cost that is specifically allowed or disallowed.

The Court did not order mediation. The Court declines to exercise its discretion to allow the mediation costs.

III.     Conclusion

The Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED in part. Defendant KLF Logistics, Inc.’s costs are TAXED by $2,100.00, as indicated in the spreadsheet below. Defendant KLF Logistics, Inc. is AWARDED $14,609.68 in costs.