Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 19STCV42761, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV42761    Hearing Date: November 14, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On June 7, 2024, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants Jamison Services Inc. and Central Plaza LLC, and against Plaintiff Hyung Koo.

On June 25, 2024, Jamison Services Inc. and Central Plaza LLC filed a Memorandum of Costs for $57,376.83 in costs.  On July 1 and 2, 2024, Jamison Services Inc., Central Plaza LLC, and Jamison Realty Advisors LLC filed their Memorandum of Costs for $32,726.79 in costs.

On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to tax costs.

On August 13, 2024, the Court continued the hearing on the motion and ordered Defendants to file separate memoranda of costs for their own allocations of costs.

On September 13, 2024, Defendants filed an Amended Memorandum of Costs reflecting total costs of $56,801.45.

On October 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to tax costs.  No oppositions were filed.

DISCUSSION

“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.)  “[I]f the correctness of the memorandum is challenged either in whole or in part by the affidavit or other evidence of the contesting party, the burden is then on the party claiming the costs and disbursements to show that the items charged were for matters necessarily relevant and material to the issues involved in the action.”  (Oak Grove School Dist. of Santa Clara County v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 699 (Oak Grove).)

Plaintiff moves to strike $45,445.08 in deposition costs, $1,832.25 in fees for electronic filing or service, and $5,395.74 in “other” costs.  (See Motion at pp. 1, 8.)

Plaintiff notes that Jamison Realty Advisors Inc’s amended memorandum of costs was reduced by only $2,666.67 (the cost of mediation).  (Motion at p. 3.)  Defendants’ memorandum of costs was reduced by only $575.38.  (Ibid.)

Plaintiff argues that the deposition costs are uncertain because many of the charges have been changed from the original memorandum without any explanation.  (Motion at pp. 4-5; McCormick Decl., Ex. 3.)  Typically, a party claiming costs does not need to provide documentation of each cost, but Plaintiff’s challenge is valid here because of the discrepancies between the original and amended memoranda.

Plaintiff argues that some of the fees for electronic filing and service are instead for unnecessary personal service of a motion for summary judgment.  (Motion at p. 6; McCormick Decl., Ex. 3.)  The electronic filing and service costs are proper and recoverable without evidence of the expenses.  However, the Court will strike the unnecessary costs for personal service of a motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff argues that some of the “other” costs are not statutorily allowable.  (Motion at pp. 6-8.)  Plaintiff identifies non-deposition mileage ($432.96), meals ($229.67), lodging ($2,066.44), and mediation ($2,666.67).  (Ibid; McCormick Decl., Ex. 3.)  These categories are not recoverable.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence and support to challenge these claimed costs.  Defendants did not file any oppositions, so they did not show that the items charged were for matters necessarily relevant and material to the issues involved in the action.  (See Oak Grove, supra, 217 Cal.App.2d at p. 699.)  Accordingly, the motion to tax costs is granted.

CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion to tax costs is GRANTED.

The Court strikes $45,445.08 in deposition costs, $1,832.25 in fees for electronic filing or service, and $5,395.74 in “other” costs (total of $52,673.17).

Defendants Jamison Services Inc. and Central Plaza LLC shall recover $4,128.28 pursuant to their Amended Memorandum of Costs.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

       Dated this 14th day of November 2024