Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 20STCV44994, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44994    Hearing Date: May 30, 2025    Dept: 45

MARTIN LOPEZ, et al. vs ELSA RAMIREZ, et al.

defendants elsA ramirez and marco ramirez’s motion to tax costs

Date of Hearing:        May 30, 2025                                     Trial Date:       None set.

Department:              45                                                        Case No.:        20STCV44994

Moving Party:            Defendants Elsa Ramirez and Marco Ramriez

Responding Party:     Plaintiff Martin Lopez

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Martin Lopez aka Martin Lopez Cervantes and Maria Del Carmen Lopez aka Maria Lopez aka Carmen Lopez, by and through her successor in interest Martin Lopez aka Martin Lopez Cervantes, filed this action on November 23, 2020 and a First Amended Complaint on December 9, 2020. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on October 14, 2022 against Defendants Elsa Ramirez, individually and as trustee of the Marco and Elsa Ramirez Trust, Marco Antonio Ramirez aka Marco Ramirez, an individual and as trustee of the Marco and Elsa Ramirez Trust, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien or interest in the property described in the Complaint and First Amended Complaint adverse to Plaintiffs’ title or any cloud upon Plaintiffs’ title thereto.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendants Elsa Ramirez and Marco Ramirez’s Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED in part.

DISCUSSION

Defendants Elsa Ramirez and Marco Ramriez move for an order taxing costs appearing in Plaintiff Martin Lopez’s Memorandum of Costs, dated April 11, 2025.

In general, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs for suit in any action or proceeding.  (CCP §1032(b); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606; Scott Co. Of Calif. v. Blount, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1103, 1108.)  The term prevailing party is defined by statute to include: The party with a net monetary recovery; a defendant who is dismissed from the action; a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant recovers anything; and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.  (CCP § 1032(a)(4).) 

“Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the costs memorandum.”  (CRC, rule 3.1700(b)(1).) “If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013.”  (Id.)  “If the cost memorandum was served electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4).”  (Id.)   

Defendants argue the court should tax Plaintiff’s request for costs because Plaintiff seeks to recover costs that are specifically prohibited by law, costs that were not “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation”, and costs that are not “reasonable in amount”. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to recover $8,753.45 in deposition costs, $2,371.10 for service of process costs, $10,180.40 for court reporter fees as established by statute, as well as $1,034.01 for models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues all the costs claimed are valid, recoverable, and were necessary to the conduct of this lengthy litigation. The court will discuss each item in dispute below.

Deposition Costs

Plaintiff claimed $8,753.45 in deposition costs. (MOC, Item 4.) Defendants move to tax the deposition costs to an amount that is reasonable and limited to what costs Plaintiff can demonstrate were actually incurred. For instance, Defendants dispute that the depositions of Nancy and Jose Martinez were necessary to the effective presentation of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.

In opposition, Plaintiff presents documentation of $8,607.60 in claimed deposition costs in the form of invoices from the relevant vendors. (Lampros Decl., Exh. A.) These costs reflect transcription fees for depositions of Defendant Elsa Ramirez, third parties Jose Martinez and Nancy Martinez, third party Juana Terrazas, and transcription fees and interpreting services to support the deposition of Plaintiff Martin Lopez, who does not speak English as well as costs related to cancellation of the stenographer for the deposition of Defendant Elsa Ramirez. As for the two individuals Defendants note were unnecessary deposition costs, Plaintiff argues the testimony was relevant as they had resided in the home for many years, meaning they could have knowledge to the ownership of the home and the contractual matters at issue in this case.

In reply, Defendant argues one of the two invoices for Defendant Elsa Ramirez is for a “Rought Draft” and Attended Fee. Defendants also argue there was no need for a Spanish interpreter.

The court will strike the invoice for the “rough draft” for $1,433.54 as not reasonably necessary. Fees are allowed for an interpreter and the court finds the fee reasonable.

Service of Process

Plaintiff claimed $2,371.10 in service of process fees. (Item No. 5). Defendants move to tax the service of process fees on the grounds there is no evidence in support of the Memorandum of Costs that these claimed costs are reasonable or accurate as to Defendants. Defendants present evidence this case appears to reflect only two Proofs of Service which apply to service of Plaintiff’s various Complaints upon Defendants. Moreover, any costs related to serving Wells Fargo is unrecoverable as Wells Fargo is the prevailing party as against Plaintiff, as evidenced by Plaintiff’s dismissal of Wells Fargo on or about February 1, 2021.

In opposition, Plaintiff submits invoices demonstrating that his true costs incurred for service of process is actually slightly high, $2,611.10. (Lampros Decl., Exh. B.) None of these invoices relate to costs of the dismissed Defendant Wells Fargo. Most of the fees arise from repeated attempts to serve third-party deponents Nancy Martinez and Jose Martinez, as initial attempts to serve them were unsuccessful. Plaintiff argues as noted above, these two individuals reside in the home that was the subject of this lawsuit, and were physically present for much of the relevant time period. As such, their testimony is relevant. Similarly, service of subpoenas to third parties Salvador Servin and Rosa Servin was necessary as the Servins were two of the original individuals named on the loan and title document for the home at issue in this case.

In reply, Defendants argue the exhibits do not show how the deposition subpoenas were served. Thus, it is impossible to determine which of the charges appearing in the invoices produced are proper or were reasonably necessary to the litigation. This is especially so with regards to the additional charges with the amounts varying and the basis or reasons for which remain vague and unspecified.

The court orders Plaintiff to explain what the additional charges are for. Some of the charges exceed the base price. However, the court finds the invoices sufficiently show they were personally served.

Court Reporter Fees

Plaintiff claimed $10,180.40 in court reporter fees. (Item No. 11.) Defendants move to tax the court reporter fees on the grounds Plaintiff and Defendants agreed to split the cost of the Court Reporter’s fee for the trial. There is no indication that the parties agreed that the prevailing party would be entitled to recover all of the shared fees. (See Anthony v. Li (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 816, 824.) Because Defendants were billed by the Court Reporter for a total of $8,843.75, they maintain Plaintiff’s costs should therefore be reduced to no more than $8,843.75.

In opposition, Plaintiff submits invoices in the amount of $9,931.25 and Mr. Lopez accordingly adjusts his claim to that figure. Plaintiff does not dispute that the parties agreed to a 50-50 split with respect to the billing of the court reporters used at trial. However, nowhere within that agreement or the email correspondence cited by Defendants is there any mention made that the prevailing party was also waiving their right to seek recovery of their share of costs for the court reporter.

In reply, Defendants argue the court reporter for the hearing on the Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens was not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation because the outcome of that hearing would not have had any effect on Plaintiff’s ability to continue litigating its claims. Defendants also argue there are some differences in Plaintiff’s invoices and Defendants’ invoices and cannot find the Day 6 part two fee that Plaintiff has provided.

The court orders Plaintiff to provide why there are two Day 6 Trial fees. As for the hearing on the Lis Pendens, the court agrees Plaintiff has not demonstrated it was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. As such, the court will strike the $475 fees.

Models, Enlargements, and Photocopies of Exhibits

Plaintiff claimed $1,034.01 in costs for preparation of exhibits, blowup, and graphics. (Item No. 13.) Defendants argue to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to recover costs for photocopying charges that are unrelated to exhibits, such costs are not recoverable. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to recover costs associated with the photocopying of its actual exhibits, and subject to the court’s discretion, it is important that Plaintiff demonstrate that the exhibits that were actually used at trial and actually assisted the trier of fact.

Defendants argue the only exhibits that could have assisted the jury were those that relate to the Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract because that was the only cause of action that the jury was asked to consider. Defendants maintain Plaintiff did not present thousands of pages of exhibits to the jury during trial. Therefore, Plaintiff is not claiming a reasonable amount of costs for photocopies of exhibits.

In opposition, Plaintiff attaches the invoices supporting their claim for $1,034.01. Plaintiff argues this amount is reasonable for a seven-day jury trial as these costs do not only reflect photocopying, but reparation and printing of photographs and graphical blowups of exhibits on posterboard that Plaintiff prepared as potential demonstratives for use at trial. Plaintiff notes the majority of these demonstratives and graphics, however, were ultimately not shown to the jury.

The court DENIES Defendant’s motion to tax Plaintiff’s Item 13. Courts have held “costs incurred in preparing photocopies of exhibits and demonstratives for trial are recoverable as a matter of right under section 1033.5(a)(13) and in the trial court's discretion pursuant to section 1033.5(c)(4), even though they were not ultimately used at trial.” (Segal v. ASICS America Corp. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 651, 661.) Although not ultimately used a trial, the court finds they were reasonably made in preparation for the six day jury trial.