Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV01030, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01030    Hearing Date: November 20, 2023    Dept: G

Defendant Belle Gonzales Halili’s Motion to Strike Costs of Plaintiff, or in the Alternative, Tax Costs

Respondent: Plaintiff M&K, LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Belle Gonzales Halili’s Motion to Strike Costs of Plaintiff, or in the Alternative, Tax Costs is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is an unlawful detainer action. In September 2016, Defendant Belle Gonzales Halili agreed to lease a West Covina property from Plaintiff M&K, LLC (M&K) for three years with a monthly rent of $3,375. The lease was extended from October 2019 to September 2024 with monthly rent being increased to $3,800. On February 23, 2023, Gonzales Halili failed to comply with a three-day notice to quit or pay rent by M&K. At the time of the notice, Gonzales Halili owed $45,600 in rent.

On April 7, 2023, M&K filed a complaint against Gonzales Halili and Does 1-10 for unlawful detainer. The court then held a bench trial and entered judgment in favor of M&K on July 19.

On September 20, 2023, Gonzales Halili filed the present motion to strike M&K’s costs. On September 29, M&K filed a motion for attorney fees. On November 1, the court granted M&K’s motion.

A hearing on Gonzales Halili’s motion is set for November 20, 2023.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Gonzales Halili’s evidentiary objections to the declaration of M&K’s counsel are OVERRULED.

ANALYSIS

Gonzales Halili moves to strike or tax M&K’s memorandum of costs on the following grounds: (1) untimely filing and service, (2) defective proof of service, (3) missing worksheet, and (4) insufficient evidentiary support. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Gonzales Halili’s motion.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Rule 3.1700, subdivision (b) of the California Rules of Court, a party may contest costs through a motion to strike or tax costs. “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.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 (Ladas).) In addition to items allowable as costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a), the court has discretion to award other costs if not prohibited by Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (b) and “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 774, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2).)

Discussion

Gonzales Halili first argues that M&K’s memorandum of costs was not timely filed and served within fifteen days of the entry of judgment on September 1, 2023. The court finds this argument is without merit since M&K’s memorandum of costs was filed with the court on September 15 and included a proof of service stating it was mailed to Gonzales Halili’s counsel on the same day.

Second, Gonzales Halili contends the proof of service in M&K’s memorandum of costs is unsigned. This argument is without merit since the proof of service filed with the court includes counsel’s signature.

Third, Gonzales Halili maintains M&K failed to provide a memorandum of costs worksheet, namely Judicial Council Form MC-011. Nevertheless, Gonzales Halili failed to point to any controlling authority that requires the use of this form.  The court notes that the form itself specifically provides that it is “for optional use.” Thus, the court does not find this argument persuasive.

Fourth and last, Gonzales Halili argues M&K failed to support the memorandum of costs with documentary evidence and disputes that such costs were reasonably incurred in litigation. Gonzales Halili’s argument, however, misconstrues the law as such requirements are only imposed after there has been a timely objection to the memorandum of costs. (Ibid.) Since the court finds that Gonzales Halili timely objected to M&K’s memorandum of costs, the court now considers whether M&K’s requested costs were proper.

M&K’s memorandum of costs requests a total of $3,740.40. In support of this request, M&K submitted a client expense report that includes $225.40 in court costs and filing fees, $1,745.80 in court filing services and process server fees, $1,200 in translation fees, and $569.20 in travel expenses through Uber. (Symons Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. D.) While Gonzales Halili argues M&K’s Uber costs are not proper, Gonzales Halili failed to develop this argument with any citation to authority that prohibits the recovery of such transportation costs. Accordingly, the court finds M&K submitted sufficient evidence to support its memorandum of costs and DENIES Gonzales Halili’s motion.

In M&K’s opposition, M&K also requests the court impose additional costs of $369.40 that were incurred after the submission of the present memorandum of costs. M&K failed, however, to provide any statutory authority or rule that allows M&K to claim additional costs in this manner. To the extent M&K relies on Rio Vista Gas Ass’n v. State (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 555, that case merely held that the court has discretion to allow the filing of an untimely bill of costs. (Id., at p. 565.) Here, the court declines to exercise its discretion to permit consideration of additional costs untimely filed by M&K.  Accordingly, M&K’s request for the award of additional costs outside of the submitted memorandum of costs is DENIED.

Lastly, M&K requests the court impose attorney fees and costs on Gonzales Halili for bringing this motion. Again, M&K failed to provide any statutory authority or case law that allows the court to award costs in this manner. While M&K cites to Orange County Municipal Water Dist. v. Anaheim Union Water Co. (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 761, that case discussed whether attorney fees could be awarded for opposing a motion to tax costs in an abandoned condemnation action pursuant to a repealed code section. (Id., at p. 764.) Here, M&K failed to explain how this authority allows the imposition of attorney fees and costs in opposing a motion in the present action. Accordingly, M&K’s request for attorney fees and costs in opposing this motion is also DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Gonzales Halili’s motion to strike or tax costs is DENIED.