Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: BC695428, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC695428    Hearing Date: April 6, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendants Mia Boykin, Edward W. Boykin Construction Company, and E.W. Boykin Construction, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTIES:     Plaintiffs Jeffrey Thomas and Fortis Development, 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

Defendants Mia Boykin, Edward W. Boykin Construction Company, and E.W. Boykin Construction, Inc. move the court for an order taxing the costs requested in the Memorandum of Costs filed by plaintiff Fortis Development, LLC (“Fortis Development”).

First, the court takes the hearing on this motion off calendar as to individual defendant Mia Boykin.

On December 6, 2022, plaintiffs Jeffrey Thomas and Fortis Development (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a “Notice of Bankruptcy Filing by Mia Boykin,” informing the court that defendant Mia Boykin filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy action on October 26, 2022.  “The filing of a voluntary chapter 7 bankruptcy petition ‘operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of—[¶] (1) the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial . . . action or proceeding against the debtor.’”  (Higgins v. Superior Court (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 973, 979 [emphasis in original].)  Thus, this action is stayed as to individual defendant Mia Boykin.  The court therefore takes the hearing on this motion off calendar as to defendant Mia Boykin, without prejudice to being rescheduled if the bankruptcy stay is lifted as to this defendant.

The court notes that the bankruptcy notice filed by Plaintiffs shows only that Mia Boykin filed a bankruptcy case.  (Dec. 6, 2022 Notice of Bankruptcy Filing, Ex. A, p. 1.)  The notice identifies only “Mia Danielle Boykin” as debtor, and does not indicate that any other party, including the other defendants in this action, have filed for bankruptcy.  (Ibid.)  “Significantly, ‘the automatic stay of judicial proceedings against a debtor in bankruptcy does not apply to nondebtor codefendants.’”  (Higgins, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 979.)  The court therefore finds that this action is not stayed as to codefendant and co-debtor Edward W. Boykin Construction Company, which is a separate defendant.  (May 17, 2022 Judgment, p. 3:7-8 [“Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Fortis [Development], and against [Mia D. Boykin] and [Edward W. Boykin Construction Company] (jointly and severally)”] [emphasis added].)

Second, the court takes this motion off calendar as to defendant E.W. Boykin Construction, Inc., because that defendant was dismissed on March 18, 2022.

Third, the court denies the motion as to remaining defendant Edward W. Boykin Construction Company (“Defendant”).

Defendant contends that the court should tax Fortis Development’s Memorandum of Costs because (1) Fortis Development improperly “appears to claim the entire costs incurred by both plaintiffs[,]” and (2) it is not supported by evidence.  (Mot., p. 3:20-21 [emphasis in original].)  The court disagrees. 

The Memorandum of Costs does not expressly state, or otherwise indicate, that Fortis Development is seeking to recover costs on behalf of both Plaintiffs.  Instead, the Memorandum of Costs lists only plaintiff Fortis Development’s name, and nowhere mentions plaintiff Jeffrey Thomas.  (June 2, 2022 MC-010, p. 1.)  Thus, the court finds that Defendant has not met its burden of showing that the Memorandum of Costs is an improper attempt to recover costs on behalf of both Plaintiffs.

Defendant also takes issue with the merits of the Memorandum of Costs, stating that it is “meritoriously disputed, erroneous, and subject to taxing.”  (Mot., p. 4:5.)  Defendant does not specifically challenge any category of costs as unreasonable or unnecessary.  “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.)  Here, Fortis Development’s Memorandum of Costs is verified by its counsel, Alexandre Ian Cornelius.  (June 2, 2022 MC-010, p. 1.)  The court finds that Defendant has not met its burden to demonstrate that the costs were not reasonable or necessary by failing to challenge specific categories of costs.  (Adams, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 1487 [“‘mere statements in the points and authorities accompanying its notice of motion to strike cost bill and the declaration of its counsel’ did not suffice to rebut the defendant’s prima facie showing that its expert costs were reasonable and necessary incurred”].) 

ORDER

The court takes off calendar the hearing on the motion to tax costs filed by defendant Mia Boykin, without prejudice to being rescheduled if the bankruptcy stay is lifted.

The court takes the motion to tax costs as filed by defendant E.W. Boykin Construction, Inc. off calendar.

The court denies defendant Edward W. Boykin Construction Company’s motion to tax costs.

The court orders plaintiff Fortis Development, LLC to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 6, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court