Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs is denied.  

The Defendants are the prevailing parties in this action for purposes of California’s costs recovery statute, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1032. Under Section 1032(a)(4), a prevailing party includes “a defendant in whose favor a dismissal was entered . . . .” Here, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its action against the Defendants after the Defendants filed a motion to change venue. The entry of the dismissal favored the Defendants within the meaning of Section 1032(a)(4). 

The dismissal was not part of a settlement between the parties in which the Defendants had to do something, such as paying money to the Plaintiff. In the Motion to Tax Costs, Plaintiff contends that the dismissal came in connection with an agreement by Plaintiff to give Defendants more time to file an appellate brief in a related case between the parties. But the email correspondence attached to the declaration in support of the Motion to Tax Costs shows that Plaintiff filed its request for dismissal before the parties’ agreement as to the due date of Defendants’ appellate brief.  

The Court finds that the amount of the costs that Defendants are seeking, $3,244.79, is reasonable. Plaintiff contends that the amount is inflated to the extent it includes costs related to the particular Defendants who were not named in the Plaintiff’s First Amendment Complaint, which was the operative pleading when Plaintiffs dismissed the action. The Court disagrees. The Defendants who were not named in the First Amended Complaint had to pay appearance fees as a result of being named as Defendants in the initial complaint. They are entitled to recover those fees as prevailing parties. They are prevailing parties because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed them from the action by dropping them from the First Amended Complaint.