Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 21STCV11107, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time.  See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).   All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 21STCV11107    Hearing Date: January 26, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Oliver Moussazadeh’s, Alexander Moussazadeh’s, Revilo Realty, Inc.’s, Alimon Williams’s, Garth St. George Davis’s, and Kyle Lynn Boseman’s motion to tax post-judgment costs submitted by Plaintiff Alexa Brown is denied.

Defendants Oliver Moussazadeh (“Oliver”), Alexander Moussazadeh (“Alexander”), Revilo Realty, Inc. (“Revilo”), Alimon Williams (“Williams”), Garth St. George Davis (“Davis”), and Kyle Lynn Boseman (“Boseman”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move to tax post-judgment costs by Plaintiff Alexa Brown (“Brown”) (“Plaintiff”).  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.R.C., Rule 3.1700.)

Background

Plaintiff’s complaint arises from the sale of her house in Lancaster, California (“Property”).  On October 26, 2023, Plaintiff settled with Defendants involved in the sale of the Property via C.C.P. §998 settlement offers.  This Court entered judgments on the accepted the §998 offers on June 23, 2022.  On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed six memoranda of costs for post-judgment enforcement.  On October 31, 2022, Defendants filed the instant motion.  On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed her opposition.  As of the date of this hearing, Defendants have not filed a reply.

Motion to Tax Costs

C.C.P. §685.070 provides, in part:

Within 10 days after the memorandum of costs is served on the judgment debtor, the judgment debtor may apply to the court on noticed motion to have the costs taxed by the court. The notice of motion shall be served on the judgment creditor. Service shall be made personally or by mail. The court shall make an order allowing or disallowing the costs to the extent justified under the circumstances of the case.

(C.C.P. §685.070(c).)  If no motion to tax costs is made within the time provided in subdivision (c), the costs claimed in the memorandum are allowed.  (C.C.P. §685.070(d).) 

“‘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.’” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.)

A prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding, except as otherwise expressly provided by statute. (C.C.P.  §1032(b).)

To the extent Defendants challenges costs, they must be challenged as costs that were not, “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation” or not “reasonable in amount.”  (C.C.P. §1033.5(c)(2)-(3).)  As discussed above, Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action, and as such, is entitled to costs pursuant to C.C.P. §1032(b).

Defendants argue they should not have to pay Plaintiff for an abstract to enforce judgments that were already paid.  (Motion, pg. 3.)  Further, Defendants argue that Plaintiff recorded abstracts in five separate counties with no showing that Defendants own property in any of the counties.  (Id.)  Defendants do not cite to any law in support of their arguments.

Defendants’ motion is untimely under C.C.P §685.070(c).  Plaintiff served her memoranda of costs on October 14, 2022.  (Decl. of Sall ¶11, Exhs. 7-12.)  Under C.C.P. §685.070(d), the costs sought in Plaintiff’s memoranda are automatically allowed.  (See Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 125, 146 [explaining that the allowance of costs under subdivision (d) “is mandatory”].)

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to tax Plaintiff’s post-judgment enforcement costs is denied.

Dated: January _____, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court