Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCV35777, Date: 2023-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV35777    Hearing Date: January 25, 2023    Dept: 39

Steven Hernandez v. Sonoco Products Company

Case No. 20STCV35777

Motion to Tax Costs 

THIS MOTION WILL BE HEARD AT 8:30 A.M. (NOT 9:00 A.M.)

            Plaintiff Steven Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action against Sonoco Products Company and Reynaldo Flores (collectively, “Defendants”).  The Court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on September 16, 2022.  Defendants filed a memorandum of costs in the amount of $50,651.63.  Plaintiff now moves to tax these costs.

            Unlike other civil cases, in actions under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the Court may award costs to the prevailing party only if the court finds that the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.  (Scott v. City of San Diego (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 228, 235, citing Gov. Code, § 12965, subd. (b), as amended by Stats. 2018, ch. 955, § 5.)  The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s counsel that the record in this case does not support such a finding notwithstanding the Court’s grants of summary judgment.  Defendant relies on the proposed judgment signed by the Court, dated October 20, 2022, which states that Defendant shall recover from Plaintiff their costs according to proof.  The Court simply neglected to strike that sentence from Defendant’s proposed judgment, as every judgment in favor of defendants in non-FEHA cases contains that same language.

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Plaintiff’s motion to strike the memorandum of costs is granted, per Government Code section 12965(b).

            2.         The Court amends the judgment, dated October 20, 2022, to strike that provision.

            3.         The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.