Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 19STCV03420, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 19STCV03420 Hearing Date: July 20, 2023 Dept: A
19STCV03420 Jonathan Rojas v. Orion Plastics Corporation
Thursday,
July 20, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Jonathan Rojas, alleges that Plaintiff sustained injury
while working on machinery at Defendant’s premises. Plaintiff sustained injury while
attempting to remove a blockage. Plaintiff alleged claims for negligence,
products liability, breach of warranty, and negligent hiring/supervision/retention/training.
On
April 26, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a ruling by the
Hon. Maurice Leiter granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on grounds
Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer as a matter of law, and Plaintiff was barred
from asserting claims against Defendant pursuant to the workers’ compensation
exclusivity doctrine. The Court of Appeal awarded Orion its costs on appeal. On
June 5, 2023, Defendant filed its memorandum of costs on appeal totaling
$1,798.39.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff
requests an order taxing all costs on grounds Defendant has not established the
costs were actually incurred or that they were reasonably related to the appeal.
Additionally, the Court should consider reducing costs because Plaintiff is
financially destitute.
In
opposition, Defendant argues that the cost memorandum creates a prima facie
presumption that the costs were reasonably incurred. It is Plaintiff’s burden
to establish that they were not reasonable or necessary, which burden Plaintiff
has not met. Plaintiff’s financial resources are irrelevant. Plaintiff has not
established his inability to pay for costs.
In
reply, Plaintiff argues that none of the costs are substantiated. No invoices
have been submitted. Plaintiff objects to the supporting declaration.
III.
LEGAL
STANDARDS
A party prevailing on a civil appeal is
entitled to recover costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, 8.278 subd. (a)(1).) The prevailing party is
the respondent if the Court of Appeal affirms the judgment without
modification. (Rule 8.278, subd. (a)(2). (c).) If the items on the cost bill appear proper,
the burden falls on the opposing party to show that the costs were not
reasonable or necessary. (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) If items are properly objected to,
they are put in issue; the burden then shifts to the party claiming costs to
establish that they were actually incurred, reasonable, and necessary. (Id.)
IV.
DISCUSSION
Defendant
contends without authority that Defendant need not prove the costs other than
to present the Memorandum of Costs. Contrary
to that argument, “once costs are challenged by way of a motion to tax, ‘[d]ocumentation
must be submitted’ to sustain the burden [citation omitted].’” (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1265.)
Plaintiff’s objections to the
Declaration of Evan Berman
#1.
Objection to the declaration and documents substantiating costs incurred is
OVERRULED.
#2.
Objection to defense counsel’s belief that Plaintiff received funds in
settlement with another defendant is SUSTAINED. Lacks foundation, hearsay.
Defendant has substantiated its costs
All
requested costs are substantiated with evidence submitted by defense counsel
and are recoverable under Rules of Court, Rule 8.278. (Berman Decl., Ex. A.) Plaintiff
has not established that the costs were unnecessary or unreasonable.
Plaintiff
contends the Court has discretion to consider a parties’ financial resources when
awarding costs. (Seever
v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1561–1562.) However,
Seever involved costs awarded under Civil
Procedure section 998 which is "designed to create economic incentives on
both parties to settle rather than try their lawsuits.” (Seever
at 1562.) Outside of
the context of section 998’s fee-shifting provisions, the Court has no
discretion to consider a party’s inability to pay. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 129 ["There is no language in section 998 which would transfer the
discretion of that section to a motion to tax costs recoverable by the
prevailing party under sections 1032 and 1033.5, and unrelated to section
998."].) Moreover, as the Nelson court observed, even if the court had
such discretion, "it would no doubt require some proof of Nelson's limited
resources." (Nelson at 129, fn.
12.). Plaintiff’s declaration alone is insufficient to establish his limited
resources.
V.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s
motion to tax is DENIED.