Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 24STCV02973, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV02973, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02973 Hearing Date: December 16, 2024 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: December 16, 2024 JUDGMENT: October 2, 2024

CASE: Chester P. Kim, et al. v. Alex Myung Cha, et al.

CASE NO.: 24STCV02973

MOTION TO TAX COSTS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Alex Myung Cha, in pro per

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Chester P. Kim, Howard Park, and Al Ilsoon Choe

CASE HISTORY:

· 02/05/24: Complaint filed.

· 02/07/24: First Amended Complaint filed.

· 04/09/24: Cross-Complaint filed.

· 04/11/24: First Amended Cross-Complaint filed.

· 10/02/24: Judgment entered.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This was an action for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs sought to unwind the election of the individual Defendants to the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles Korean Festival Foundation and to reverse Plaintiffs’ expulsion from that board.

Defendant Alex Myung Cha moves to tax costs claimed in Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Costs.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant Alex Myung Cha moves to tax costs claimed in Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Costs.

Legal Standard

In general, the “prevailing party” is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs for suit in any action or proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. §1032(b); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606; Scott Co. Of Calif. v. Blount, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1103, 1108.) Assuming the “prevailing party” requirements are met, the trial court has no discretion to order each party to bear his or her own costs of suit. (Michell v. Olick (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1198; Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 129.)

Allowable costs under Section 1033.5 must be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation, and must be reasonable in amount. An item not specifically allowable under Section 1033.5(a) nor prohibited under subdivision (b) may nevertheless be recoverable in the discretion of the court if they meet the above requirements (i.e., reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount). 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. (Ladas v. California State Automotive Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-774.) 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. (Ibid.) Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Ibid.) However, because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute, a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized. (Id.) Discretion is abused only when, in its exercise, the court “exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.” (Ibid.)

Timeliness of Motion

“Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. If the cost memorandum was served by mail or email, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(1).) Here, the Memorandum of Costs was served and filed on October 8, 2024. This motion was served on October 17, 2024, nine days later. This motion is therefore timely.

Specificity of Challenged Costs

Defendant does not specifically identify in the Notice of Motion which costs he seeks to challenge, as required by California Rule of Court 3.1700(b). The Court would therefore be within its discretion to deny the motion in its entirety. However, the Court observes that Defendant’s memorandum of points and authorities refers to (1) a specific $420 charge for filing fees in the Cost Worksheet identified by page and line number; and (2) interpreter fees listed in Item 13 of the memorandum of Costs. (See Memorandum of Costs.) As Plaintiffs have not objected to the notice of motion on this basis, the Court will overlook this error and consider the motion on its merits with respect to the individual cost items being challenged.

Challenged Costs

Defendant challenges two sets of costs: (1) a request for $420 in filing fees on page 4, line 23 of the Memorandum, and (2) the request for interpreter fees in the amount of $2,820.00 in Item 13.

1. Filing Fees

Defendant challenges a single request for $420 in filing fees in connection with a witness list for a hearing on June 25, 2024 as excessive. Plaintiffs state in response that the $420 amount is a typographical error, and the proper amount should be $21.77. As Plaintiffs state, the total costs claimed for filing fees in Item 1, amounting to $1,510.55, reflects this reduced value. The Court therefore finds that the claimed costs need not be taxed, the error in the cost memorandum notwithstanding.

2. Interpreter Fees

Defendant also challenges Plaintiffs’ request for interpreter fees in Item 13, totaling $2,820, on the unsupported assertion that no depositions were taken by the parties justifying $820 in interpreter fees for depositions, and $2,000 in translation fees were not necessary. Bare assertions are not sufficient to place the costs claimed in the memorandum of costs at issue such that Plaintiffs are obligated to justify the costs. The Court is therefore not persuaded that these costs should be taxed.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2024 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.