Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 22STCP03150, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP03150    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: 86

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Case Number: 22STCP03150

Hearing Date: May 17, 2023

[Tentative]       ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TAX COSTS

On December 7, 2022, 10 named Real Parties in Interest—Eric Siddall, Christina Young, Keith Koyano, Lauren Guber, Maria Ghobadi, Kristiana Dietzel, Angie Christedes, Angela Brunson, Maribelle Estrella Bean, and Anya Artan—filed their memorandum of costs reflecting total costs of $4,497.58.

Petitioner, the County of Los Angeles, moves to tax “costs associated with the duplicative and unwarranted filing fees in the total amount of $3,915.00.” (Motion 2:13-14.)[1]

The motion is denied.

APPLICABLE LAW

“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).)

“Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2).) “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.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) “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.” (Ibid.)

Government Code section 70612, subdivision (a) provides in part: “The uniform filing fee for filing the first paper in the action or proceeding described in Section 70611 on behalf of any defendant, intervenor, respondent or adverse party, whether separately or jointly, except for the purpose of making disclaimer, is three hundred fifty-five dollars ($355). . . .”

Government Code section 70602.5, subdivision (a) requires a supplemental fee of 40 dollars to file any first paper. Government Code section 70602.6, subdivision (a) also requires a supplemental fee of 40 dollars to file any first paper.

ANALYSIS

On August 25, 2022, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking a stay of certain proceedings before the Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (Commission) and to enjoin the public from attending or participating in the Commission hearings. (Lee Decl., ¶ 2.)

On September 8, 2022, Petitioner filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order for the limited purposes of (1) staying the Commission hearings set to resume on September 19, 2022 and/or (2) an order enjoining the public from participating in those Commission hearings until a decision had been rendered upon the petition for writ of mandate. Judge Chalfant denied Petitioner’s ex parte application without prejudice and ordered Petitioner to name the 10 Real Parties as Real Parties in Interest. (Lee Decl., ¶ 2.)

Thereafter, Petitioner renewed its ex parte application; all 10 Real Parties appeared and opposed the application.[2] (Lee Decl., ¶ 2.) The opposition consisted of a single paper filed on behalf of the 10 Real Parties. A single attorney represented all 10 Real Parties.

Real Parties argue they were required to file a first appearance fee for all 10 Real Parties even though they filed a single opposition. Real Parties explain they all opposed the application and necessarily filed the opposition to avoid a claim any of the Real Parties did not oppose the application.

Petitioner’s motion is not well taken. The Government Code required each party appearing—all 10 Real Parties—to file a first appearance fee. Townzen v. County of El Dorado (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1350 addresses this issue. The applicable Government Code provisions demonstrate the Legislature “intended [Government Code 70612, subdivision (a)][3] to require that each of several defendants shall pay a filing fee in the amount stated, regardless of whether they decided to join with other defendants in a responsive pleading.” (Id. at 1358.)

Moreover, Real Parties provide evidence they paid $4,350 to the court as and for filing fees. That evidence is undisputed. The court “automatically charged the first appearance fee of $435.00 for each of the Real Parties in Interest” when Real Parties’ counsel filed the opposition.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 17, 2023                                                                          ____________________________________

                                                                                                    Hon. Mitchell Beckloff

                                                                                                     Judge of the Superior Court