Judge Thomas D. Long, Case TC029184 2022-11-01 Tentative Ruling

On August 5, 2022, the Court entered judgment in favor of Michael Magasinn, as the Successor Trustee of the Shamsam Irrevocable Trust, and against Defendant Behnam Rafalian.

On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs, reflecting $40,389.92 in costs. On September 6, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to tax costs.

“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 (Adams).) “[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.)

Defendant argues that the description of “Summitt Photocopying of trial transcripts for court; court reporter ct. ordered transcript costs” for court-ordered transcripts is legally insufficient and not allowable. (Motion at pp. 5, 8.) Defendant cites no authority requiring a more detailed description for this item. As Plaintiff notes (Opposition at pp. 2-3; Hewitt Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. B), the Court requested the trial transcripts. The costs for these court-ordered transcripts are allowable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(9).)

Defendant also argues that the description of “Copies of Exhibit Books for Trial, Bates Labelling, Color Copies” is not specific enough. (Motion at p. 5.) The description is sufficient for Plaintiff’s prima facie evidence of the propriety of the costs.

Defendant moves to strike $1,760.00 in unauthorized expert witness fees not ordered by the Court. (Motion at p. 7.) Plaintiff concedes this cost that was paid to the expert for his deposition. (Opposition at p. 1.) The Court therefore deducts $1,760.00.

Defendant contends that $2,366.78 is “grossly excessive and unreasonable purported costs for service of process.” (Motion at p. 7.) Defendant notes that Government Code section 26721.2 mandates a statutory fee of $40.00 for any service of legal process attempted or effectuated by Los Angeles County sheriffs. (Ibid.) Plaintiff actually incurred these amounts in effecting service. (Hewitt Decl. ¶¶ 2-5 & Ex A.) Accordingly, they are allowable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(4)(B).)

Item 16 identified $2,434.40 in “Other” costs. Plaintiff describes these as “Ct. Connect fees, Attorney Service fees, LASC court copies charges.” Defendant argues that the $1,399.00 for Court Connect fees is not allowable. (Motion at p. 8.) Plaintiff concedes this cost. (Opposition at p. 1.) The Court therefore deducts $1,399.00.

Within the “Other costs,” Defendant argues that $384.67 is not allowable for “Attorney service fees for filing (prior to electronic filing).” (Motion at pp. 8-9.) The costs are not expressly prohibited, so they are allowable in the Court’s discretion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(4).) Services for filing (as opposed to actual filing fees) are merely convenient or beneficial, not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, so the Court deducts $384.67. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2).)

Defendant also moves to strike, within the “Other” costs, the $650.73 for “LASC copies of court documents.” (Motion at p. 9.) Photocopying charges are not allowable unless they are for exhibits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (b)(3).) In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the copying fees were for exhibits, including the appraisal report. (Opposition at p. 3; Hewitt Decl. ¶ 8.) This is not credible when Plaintiff separately listed $3,391.42 in costs for “Models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits,” and describes this line-item as “LASC copies of court documents.” The Court therefore deducts $650.73.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Court strikes $1,760.00 in deposition costs (expert fee), $1,399.00 for Court Connect costs, $384.67 for attorney service costs, and $650.73 for copying costs.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court