Judge Michelle C. Kim, Case Number: 19STCV19479, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling

The Court grants the motion in part and strikes $2,522.92, awarding Plaintiffs $12,242.41 in total costs.

This is an employment case. On June 6, 2024, the Court entered judgment for Plaintiffs after jury trial. On June 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Memorandum of Costs, claiming total costs of $14,765.33. On July 2, 2024, Defendant moved to tax Plaintiffs’ costs claim. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on September 5, 2024. On September 9, 2024, Defendant replied.

“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).) “If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 enumerates specific recoverable costs (subd. (a)), non-recoverable costs (subd. (b)), and a standard by which a court may determine whether to award those costs not enumerated (subd. (c)).

Defendant has placed nearly three pages of costs at issue. The Court categorizes them as follows for the sake of brevity:

Item	Category	Cost
1.	CRS, CourtCall, and CourtConnect fees	$216.65
2.	Mileage and Court Parking	$394.52
3.	Mediation Costs	$1,005.00
4.	Cancelled Deposition Costs	$596.00
5.	Trial Supplies	$1,603.40
6.	“PAGA Complaint”	$75.00
7.	“Asset & Legal Research”	$450.00

Defendant also seeks to reduce, but not strike, the costs associated with five subpoenas that were not enforced against trial or deposition witnesses.

Beginning with the plain terms of section 1033.5: filing and motion fees, which the Court regards to include remote appearance fees, are recoverable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(1).) The motion is denied as to Item No. 1.

Deposition costs are also covered. Defendant argues in its papers that one deposition referred to in Item No. 4 was not attended and therefore not reasonably necessary, but Defendant offers no evidence to prove as much. Where a cost bill appears proper, as it does for Item 4, it is Defendant’s burden to show the costs are unreasonable. They have not carried it. The motion is denied as to Item No. 4.

Defendant similarly offers no evidence that the mediation fees here were unreasonable. Mediation costs are recoverable in a civil proceeding. (See Berkeley Cement, Inc. v. Regents of University of California (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1140.) Defendant’s citation to Gibson v. Bobroff (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1206 is nearly sanctionable; the case stands for the opposite proposition. Also, Counsel does not attest that the parties agreed to split mediation costs. A mediator does not have the power to make an award, so the Court would expect some evidence of a stipulation to split costs. The motion is denied as to Item No. 3.

As to Items 2, 5, 6, and 7, the costs are not clearly proper. Section 1033.5 does not expressly permit recovery of travel expenses except for travel to depositions. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(3)(C).) “Trial supplies” are largely not recoverable, except for trial exhibits necessary to assist the trier of fact. (See id., subds. (a)(13) [models, photocopying of exhibits recoverable], (b)(2) [photocopying charges not recoverable except for exhibits].) “PAGA Complaint” and “Asset & Legal Research” do not clearly fall into any permissible or impermissible category.

Because Items 2, 5, 6, and 7 are not proper on their face, it is Plaintiffs’ burden to justify them. They have not. Counsel’s declaration accompanying Plaintiffs’ deposition explains little, if anything, about the necessity of the relevant costs. As to Items 2, 5, 6, and 7, the motion is granted.

Finally, the Court also finds service of deposition and trial subpoenas on four proposed witnesses was not unreasonable, even if their depositions were not taken and they did not testify at trial. Defendant has not shown otherwise. Service fees are prima facie recoverable (id., subd. (a)(4)), so the burden rests with Defendant. The motion is denied as to Defendant’s proposed cost reductions.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to tax costs is granted in part. The Court strikes $2,522.92 of the costs in Plaintiffs’ memorandum and awards Plaintiffs $12,242.41 in costs.

LENY CEPEDA, et al.; Plaintiffs, vs. SWEET FISH SUSHI BAR, INC.; Defendant.	Case No.:	19STCV19479
	Hearing Date:	April 18, 2024

	[TENTATIVE] RULING RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS