Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV19236, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 20STCV19236    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Coast Fitness, LLC  

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant So Cal PF Hawthorne, LLC

Motion to Tax Costs

The court considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with this motion.  No reply papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Coast Fitness, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order taxing costs claimed by defendant So Cal PF Hawthorne, LLC (“Defendant”) in its Memorandum of Costs, filed with the court on July 29, 2022.  Plaintiff requests the court strike Defendant’s request for costs in the amount of $622.58, incurred for “Online Legal Research Charges” on the ground that such costs are not specifically authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5. (Memorandum of Costs, MC-011, p. 4.)

“A ‘verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of the propriety’ of the items listed on it, and the burden is on the party challenging these costs to demonstrate that they were not reasonable or necessary.”  (Adams v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1486.)           

The court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden of showing that this request for costs is not permitted by statute because (1) Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a) does not specifically allow for the recovery of costs incurred for legal research, and (2) Plaintiff has cited authority establishing that “[f]ees for legal research, computer or otherwise, may not be recovered under section 1033.5.”  (Ladas v. California State Auto Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 776.)  Although Defendant has cited federal authority to argue that these costs are permitted under the circumstances presented here, the court is bound by the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Ladas.  (Sarti v. Salt Creek Ltd. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1193.)

The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion to tax or strike the $622.58 in costs claimed by Defendant for “Online Legal Research Charges.”

ORDER

The court grants plaintiff Coast Fitness, LLC’s motion to tax costs.

The court orders that the $622.58 in costs claimed by defendant So Cal PF Hawthorne, LLC in its Memorandum of Costs, filed with the court on July 29, 2022, is stricken.

The court orders plaintiff Coast Fitness, LLC to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  May 1, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court