Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2020-00017840-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 21, 2024

03/22/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00017840-CU-OR-CTL JUAREZ VS ENCORE AMERICAN INVESTMENTS INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Strike or Tax Costs, 08/15/2023

Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Tax Costs (ROA 490) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff first seeks to strike the entire memo on the grounds it is not accompanied by a separate verified declaration. 'The memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case.' (Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1700(a).) Defendant's memorandum of costs complies with this requirement. (ROA 484, Memo. at p. 1.) Indeed, it is made on an approved Judicial Council form, which tracks the requirements of the applicable rule of court. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to strike the entire memo is denied.

Plaintiff also seeks to tax certain specific costs in the memo.

Where costs appear to be proper, the costs memo is prima facie evidence of such, and the burden of proof is on the objecting party to show they were not reasonable or necessary. (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774-76.) Where the objection to the costs appears to be proper, the burden of proof is on the party claiming the costs. (Ibid.) A party objecting to costs must support its motion to strike/tax with declarations. (County of Kern v. Ginn (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1113-14.) The supporting declarations must include facts, not merely conclusory allegations. (Ibid.) Plaintiff argues the filing fees in Item 1 are excessive, stating that '[t]here appears to be 22 events that should be reduced to the amount that electronic service by electronic service reduced to the amount of thousand dollars are for process service by personal rather than the available electronic filing.' (Mtn. at 7:10-12.) While it is difficult, to say the least, to understand what this means, Plaintiff appears to contend that the court should take the smallest amount charged for any particular filing and apply that amount to all 22 filings. No authority or rationale is provided for this counterintuitive argument.

Accordingly, this request is denied.

Plaintiff more specifically challenges the $916.66 filing fee within Item 1 for Defendants' first demurrer filed on October 13, 2020. Each Defendant would have each paid a fee of $435.00, for a total of $870.00. (Govt. Code §§ 70612, 70602.5, 70602.6.) No explanation is given for the remaining amount despite the challenge made by Plaintiff; accordingly, the fees are reduced by $46.66.

Plaintiff argues the deposition costs in Item 4 are not reasonable. However, deposition costs, including Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3041906  8 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  JUAREZ VS ENCORE AMERICAN INVESTMENTS INC [IMAGED]  37-2020-00017840-CU-OR-CTL costs incurred to take depositions and costs incurred to videotape depositions, are generally allowable as costs. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a)(3)(A).) Plaintiff's argument that deposition costs are recoverable only if an underlying contract provides a basis for recovery of attorneys fees is illogical, since recovery of costs is permitted even when recovery of attorneys fees is not, and it is, not surprisingly, unsupported by any authority. Although Plaintiff attempted to argue that some depositions were not reasonably conducted or necessary, Plaintiff's memorandum lacked any specifics, other than pointing out that she consented to the length of a deposition she now contends was excessive, and no supporting declaration was filed. Plaintiff has also not established that the depositions were videotaped to harass or intimidate her, or that there was no legitimate basis for videotaping the depositions. Accordingly, as to Item 4, the motion is denied.

As to Item 5, the motion is denied as well. Service of process is generally an allowable cost. (Code Civ.

Proc. § 1033.5(a)(4).) Plaintiff did not file a supporting declaration and has not met her initial burden to demonstrate these costs were not reasonable and necessary. Her argument that only filing fees and not any associated service of process fees are recoverable is unsupported by any authority and appears to confuse or conflate filing fees and service fees. She provides no support for her apparent contention that recovery of fees for personal service as opposed to electronic service is impermissible.

Defendants Maggio Capital, Inc. and Carl Stephen Maggio are awarded costs in the reduced amount of $14,683.85. The court clerk is to interlineate this amount on the Judgment.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3041906  8