Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

AMYN NASSER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DONALD GORDON WALKER, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.:

18STCV01622

Hearing Date:

October 10, 2023

Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.

TENTATIVE RULING RE:

MOTION TO TAX COSTS

Background

On October 16, 2018, Plaintiff Amyn Nasser (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Donald Gordon Walker (“Donald Walker”), Clinton Graham Walker, Graffcor Tele Services, LLC, and Home Health Marketing Enterprises, Inc.

Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint in this action on July 8, 2019, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) intentional misrepresentation, and (3) negligent misrepresentation.

On April 3, 2023, a “Judgment After Trial” was entered in this action. The Judgment provides that “[t]he above captioned matter having regularly come on for trial on August 24-26 in Department 50 of the above-entitled Court before the Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet sitting without jury, the Court having considered the evidence and read the arguments of counsel, and having heard subsequent arguments and having rendered a Statement of Decision and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Defendant on the First Amended Complaint.”

The Court’s April 3, 2023 minute order provides, inter alia, that “Court orders judgment entered for Defendant Donald Gordon Walker, an individual against Plaintiff Amyn Nasser, an individual on the Amended Complaint (1st) filed by Amyn Nasser on 07/08/2019 for a total of $0.00.”

On February 21, 2023, Donald Walker filed a Memorandum of Costs.

Plaintiff now moves “for an order to tax [Donald Walker’s]…Memorandum of Costs dated February 12, 2023, and served upon Plaintiff on February 21, 2023.” No opposition to the motion was filed.

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (b), “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (a)(4), “‘[p]revailing party’ includes the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.” As set forth above, the Court’s April 3, 2023 minute order provides that “Court orders judgment entered for Defendant Donald Gordon Walker, an individual against Plaintiff Amyn Nasser, an individual on the Amended Complaint (1st) filed by Amyn Nasser on 07/08/2019 for a total of $0.00.”

Costs recoverable under section 1032 are restricted to those that are both reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1033.5, subds. (c)(2), (3).) Costs “merely convenient or beneficial” to the preparation of a case are disallowed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2); see Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 [expenses for attorney meals incurred while attending local depositions not “reasonably necessary”].)

“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, 1486-1487 [italics and brackets omitted].) “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., supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 774.) Costs otherwise allowable as a matter of right may be disallowed if the court determines they were not reasonably necessary, and the court has power to reduce the amount of any cost item to an amount that is reasonable. (See Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 245 [finding that “the intent and effect of section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(2) is to authorize a trial court to disallow recovery of costs, including filing fees, when it determines the costs were incurred unnecessarily”].)

On February 21, 2023, Donald Walker filed a Memorandum of Costs claiming a total of $1,248.72 in costs.

Item 11 of Donald Walker’s Memorandum of Costs claims $769.35 in “Court reporter fees as established by statute.” Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration in support of the instant motion provides, inter alia, that “[t]he bench trial in this matter commenced as against Defendant Donald Walker on August 24, 2022, and continued from August 25, 2022, to August 26, 2022. In preparation for trial, I secured a virtual court reporter to prepare a transcript of the trial proceedings. Plaintiff and Defendant Donald Walker did not agree to split costs, and Plaintiff bore the full responsibility of such costs. Across four invoices in this matter, Plaintiff’s total amounted to approximately $4,494.” (Lindblom Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff asserts that accordingly, “Defendant’s request is unreasonable and excessive because throughout this matter, Plaintiff bore the cost of all transcripts and court reporting services, including reserving the court reporter for the three-day bench trial in this matter, which totaled $4,494…” (Mot. at p. 2:13-16.)

The Court notes that Donald Walker did not file any opposition the instant motion, and thus does not provide any evidence demonstrating that he incurred the claimed $769.35 in “Court reporter fees as established by statute.”

Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of any opposition, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to tax Donald Walker’s claimed costs in the amount of $769.35.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to tax Donald Walker’s claimed $769.35 in “Court reporter fees as established by statute.”

Plaintiff is to provide notice of this ruling.¿

DATED: October 10, 2023 ________________________________

Hon. Rolf M. Treu

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court