Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV08655, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV08655    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff Shahram “Ray” Golbari (“Golbari”) filed this action against Defendant Saeid “Steve” Aminpour (“Aminpour”). The operative Second Amended Complaint was filed on April 30, 2021 and asserts causes of action for (1) equitable indemnity, (2) contribution, (3) apportionment, and (4) to set aside and recover fraudulent conveyances.

On September 14, 2020, Aminpour filed a Cross-Complaint against Golbari, Petite Note Group, LLC, and LA Properties Investment, Inc. (“LA Properties”), asserting causes of action for (1) breaches of fiduciary duties, (2) demand and claim for distribution, (3) conversion, (4) constructive trust, (5) requests and demands for inspection and documents, (6) common count for money loaned, (7) to void and recover voidable transfers, and (8) to void and recover voidable transfers.

On September 23, 2021, Golbari filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s August 18, 2021 “Judgment of Dismissal After Sustaining of Defendant Aminpour’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Golbari’s Second Amended Complaint.” 

On December 6, 2022, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District issued an Order indicating, inter alia, that “Plaintiff Shahram Golbari seeks to appeal from a judgment entered following the trial court’s order sustaining defendant Saeid Aminpour’s demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend.” The Court of Appeal found that “[b]ecause the cross-complaint between the parties remained outstanding at the time of the filing of the notice of appeal, the judgment on the second amended complaint did not resolve all the claims then pending between plaintiff and defendant. Based on the authorities above, the judgment was interlocutory and could not be reviewed on direct appeal. We therefore dismiss plaintiff’s appeal.” The Court of Appeal also ordered that “Defendant is awarded costs on appeal.”

On February 23, 2023, the Court of Appeal issued a Remittitur indicating, inter alia, that the December 6, 2022 “order, opinion or decision has now become final. Defendant is awarded costs on appeal.”

On February 24, 2023, Aminpour filed a Memorandum of Costs on Appeal. 

Golbari now moves to tax costs claimed on appeal by Aminpour.  Aminpour opposes.

Discussion

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subdivision (c)(1), “[w]ithin 40 days after issuance of the remittitur, a party claiming costs awarded by a reviewing court must serve and file in the superior court a verified memorandum of costs under rule 3.1700.” In addition, “[a] party may serve and file a motion in the superior court to strike or tax costs claimed under (1) in the manner required by rule 3.1700.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.278, subd. (c)(2).)

California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subdivision (d)(1) provides as follows:

“(1) A party may recover only the following costs, if reasonable:

(A) Filing fees;

(B) The amount the party paid for any portion of the record, whether an original or a copy or both. The cost to copy parts of a prior record under rule 8.147 (b)(2) is not recoverable unless the Court of Appeal ordered the copying;

(C) The cost to produce additional evidence on appeal;

(D) The costs to notarize, serve, mail, and file the record, briefs, and other papers;

(E) The cost to print and reproduce any brief, including any petition for rehearing or review, answer, or reply;

(F) The cost to procure a surety bond, including the premium, the cost to obtain a letter of credit as collateral, and the fees and net interest expenses incurred to borrow funds to provide security for the bond or to obtain a letter of credit, unless the trial court determines the bond was unnecessary; and

(G) The fees and net interest expenses incurred to borrow funds to deposit with the superior court in lieu of a bond or undertaking, unless the trial court determines the deposit was unnecessary.”

Golbari asserts that with the exception of Aminpour’s claimed filing fees of $390.00, none of Aminpour’s claimed costs fall within the ambit of California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subdivision (d)(1).

Item 2 of Aminpour’s Memorandum of Costs on Appeal claims $640.00 for “[p]reparation of the original and copies of clerk’s transcript or appendix.” Golbari asserts that this amount should be taxed because “Golbari paid for and filed the appendix and transcript on the appeal.” (Mot. at p. 3:10.) The Court notes that Golbari does not provide any evidence in support of this assertion. Golbari also asserts that “as counsel’s vendor apparently already told him, the $640 charge was for ‘Appendix prep’ fee charged by a vendor, not a hard cost actually incurred for physically preparing an appendix…As such, it should be taxed.” (Mot. at p. 4:18-21, emphasis omitted.) The Court does not understand the significance of this purported distinction. Golbari references a December 7, 2022 email from “Alaine Patti-Jelsvik” to Aminpour’s counsel, which is attached to Aminpour’s Memorandum of Costs on Appeal. The email references “Appendix prep - $640.” As noted by Aminpour, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subdivision (d)(1)(B), recoverable costs include, if reasonable, “[t]he amount the party paid for any portion of the record, whether an original or a copy or both.” There is no mention of “hard copies” in the rule. The Court does not find that Golbari has demonstrated that the requested amount is unreasonable. Thus, the Court declines to strike the $640.00 in claimed costs.

Item 4 of Aminpour’s Memorandum of Costs on Appeal claims $342.20 for “[p]rinting and copying of briefs.” Golbari asserts that “Aminpour’s claimed cost of $342.20 cannot have been incurred for ‘printing and copying briefs’ when the briefs were neither printed nor copied; they were electronically filed and served.” (Mot. at p. 4:23-24.) The Court notes that Golbari does not provide any evidence in support of this assertion. In addition, as noted by Aminpour, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subdivision (d)(1)(E), a party may recover, if reasonable, “[t]he cost to print and reproduce any brief, including any petition for rehearing or review, answer, or reply.”[1] The Court does not find that Golbari has demonstrated that the requested amount is unreasonable, and declines to strike the $342.20 in claimed costs.

Item 6 of Aminpour’s Memorandum of Costs on Appeal claims $314.00 for “[t]ransmitting, filing, and serving of record, briefs, and other papers.” As an initial matter, Golbari erroneously indicates in his motion that Aminpour seeks $635 for “transmitting, filing and serving of record, briefs and other papers.” (Mot. at p. 5:2-3.) As set forth above, Aminpour seeks $314.00 in connection with Item 6.

In addition, Golbari asserts that the requested costs were “for electronic bookmarking to make the file compliant with the Court of Appeal’s rules.” (Mot. at p. 5:5.) In support of this assertion, Golbari cites to an August 4, 2022 document attached to Aminpour’s Memorandum of Costs on Appeal,” which concerns a “Supplemental Estimate – Respondent’s Appendix.” As noted by Aminpour, this document does not appear to reference costs for “transmitting, filing and serving of record, briefs and other papers.” Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subdivision (d)(1)(D), a party may recover, if reasonable, “[t]he costs to notarize, serve, mail, and file the record, briefs, and other papers.” Based on the foregoing, the Court declines to strike Aminpour’s claimed costs of $314.00.

Lastly, Golbari asserts that none of Aminpour’s claimed costs are reasonable. In support of this assertion, Golbari contends that “[a]s skilled administrative assistant, a legal secretary or even Googling ‘how to bookmark briefs’ would have avoided the claimed fees altogether.” (Mot. at p. 5:10-12.) However, Aminpour does not seek costs for bookmarking briefs. The Court does not find that Golbari has demonstrated that Aminpour’s claimed costs are unreasonable.

Conclusion 

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Golbari’s motion to tax costs in its entirety. 

///

///   

Aminpour is ordered to give notice of this ruling.  

DATED:  May 18, 2023                                       ________________________________ 

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet 

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court