Judge Robert P. Dahlquist, Case 37-2019-00042954-CU-MC-NC 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Robert P. Dahlquist, Case: 37-2019-00042954-CU-MC-NC, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 30, 2024

01/31/2024 01:30:00 PM N-29 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert P Dahlquist

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00042954-CU-MC-NC NORTH COUNTY ADVOCATES VS CITY OF CARLSBAD [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 11/17/2023

Plaintiff North County Advocates' motion to tax costs (ROA # 288) is granted in part and denied in part.

On August 14, 2019, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant City of Carlsbad for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant was violating the City's Growth Management Plan (GMP) by allegedly exceeding the City's GMP performance standards for open space, parks and vehicular traffic congestion. Plaintiff sought an injunction enjoining the defendant from 'approving any further development in violation of Proposition E and the Growth Management Plan until Defendants come into compliance with Proposition E, the Growth Management Plan, and applicable requirements.' Complaint (ROA # 1), Prayer, B.

On October 26, 2023, the court entered judgment following a bench trial. ROA # 283. The court found in favor of the defendant City, and found City to be the prevailing party entitled to recover costs. Id. On November 2, 2023, City filed a memorandum of costs seeking to recover costs in the amount of $18,496.63. ROA # 287. North County Advocates moves to strike and/or tax certain costs. ROA # 288.

City opposes the motion. ROA # 298.

After careful review of the arguments, evidence and authorities presented by both parties, the court finds that defendant City of Carlsbad is entitled to recover costs totaling $9,675.33, as follows.

Item 1: $675 (filing fees) Item 2: $0 Item 3: $0 Item 4: $0 Item 5: $0 Item 6: $0 Item 7: $0 Item 8: $0 Item 9: $0 Item 10: $0 Item 11: $2,069 (court reporter fees) (see Anthony v. Li (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 816, 825) Item 12: $2,019.72 (models/enlargements/photocopies of exhibits) Item 13: $0 Item 14: $4,347.61 (fees for electronic filing or service) Item 15: $0 (fees for hosting electronic documents) (see CCP § 1033.5(a)(13)) Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3080031 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: NORTH COUNTY ADVOCATES VS CITY OF CARLSBAD [IMAGED] 37-2019-00042954-CU-MC-NC Item 16: $564 (other) The City should submit a proposed amended judgment that reflects the amount of awarded costs.

This minute order constitutes the court's order. No party is required to submit a proposed order after hearing.

This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing (in person or remote) at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 31, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of January 31, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3080031