Superior Court of California¿ 

County of Los Angeles¿ 

Department 78¿ 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiffs Robert E. Owens, Jr. and Raul Michael Pedroza, Jr. filed this PAGA action against defendant CSK Auto, Inc. n/k/a O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (“Defendant”), et al.   

On January 16, 2024, judgment was entered in favor of Defendant against plaintiff Raul Michael Pedroza, Jr. (“Plaintiff”).  

On February 13, 2024, Defendant filed its memorandum of costs. 

Plaintiff now moves to strike the cost memorandum. Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.   

 

II. DISCUSSION¿ 

Plaintiff first argues that Defendant is not entitled to recover costs in its entirety because Labor Code § 2699(g)(1) authorizes only a one-way fee-shifting provision, and that there is no provision in this section allowing a successful employer to recover fees or costs. The Court rejects this argument.   

Pursuant to CCP § 1032, the “prevailing party” is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs for suit in any action or proceeding. (CCP §1032(b); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606; Scott Co. of Calif. v. Blount, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1103, 1108.) CCP § 1032 applies “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by statute.” (CCP 1032(b); Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 985, 989-999.) Labor Code 2699(g)(1) provides that a prevailing plaintiff can recover fees and costs, but does not “otherwise expressly provide” that a defendant cannot recover costs. “When statutory language is thus clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, and courts should not indulge in it.” (Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182, 198, 137 Cal.Rptr. 460, 561 P.2d 1148.) A court may not construe the plain language of a statute as to substitute its wisdom for that of the legislature. (Lasky, Haas, Cohler & Munter v. Superior Court (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 264, 279; Standon Co. v. Superior Ct. (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 904.) The Court therefore finds that Defendant is entitled to costs as the prevailing party pursuant to CCP § 1032. The Court declines to consider Plaintiff’s public policy arguments, which are better expressed to the Legislature.   

Plaintiff argues, in the alternative, that if the Court finds CCP § 1032 applicable, that the following costs be taxed: (1) $1,060.00 for documents filed in the appellate court, and (2) $4,948.70 for trial transcripts. In opposition, Defendant concedes that the $1,060.00 appellate costs should be taxed, averring that these costs were inadvertently included. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to tax $1,060.00 is GRANTED.   

As to the trial transcripts, Plaintiff argues that these are not recoverable because they were not “ordered by the court” pursuant to CCP § 1033.5(a)(9). In opposition, Defendant argues that these transcripts were in fact ordered by the Court, and that the parties were ordered to lodge the trial transcripts and exhibits at the conclusion of trial for the Court’s review. Plaintiff does not contest this on reply. The Court finds that the transcripts were ordered and therefore recoverable. Plaintiff’s request to tax $4,948.70 for trial transcripts is DENIED.   

 

III. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs is GRANTED IN PART. The Court taxes $1,060.00 from Defendant’s costs memorandum and awards Defendant its litigation costs in the total amount of $53,438.76.     

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: July 8, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim¿ 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.