Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 20VECV00691, Date: 2025-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20VECV00691    Hearing Date: March 13, 2025    Dept: 45

SPOTLIGHT TICKET MANAGEMENT, INC. V. EBAY INC., ET AL.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

Date of Hearing:          March 13, 2025                       Trial Date:       N/A

Department:               45                                            Case No:          20VECV00691

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Spotlight Ticket Management, Inc.

Responding Party:       Defendant StubHub, Inc.

Notice:                         Proper

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This action arises from Plaintiff Spotlight Ticket Management, Inc.’s (Spotlight) use of online marketplaces operated by Defendants StubHub, Inc. (StubHub) and eBay Inc. (eBay) in order to conduct sales online.

A jury trial was held in this matter on April 30, 2024. The jury found in favor of Plaintiff Spotlight and against Defendant StubHub. Judgment was entered against StubHub on November 19, 2024, in the amount of $16,376,935.00.

On December 4, 2024, Spotlight filed a memorandum of costs in which Spotlight sought a total of $383,473.13 in costs. These costs were $6,469.33 for filing and motion fees, $1,443.88 for jury fees, $285,444.86 for deposition costs, $125.45 for service of process, $112.83 for witness fees, $88,417.38 for court reporter fees, and $1,459.40 for fees for electronic filing or service.

On December 19, 2024, StubHub filed a motion to tax costs. That motion is set to be heard on April 2, 2025. StubHub seeks a reduction in costs of $97,190.63.

On January 31, 2025, Spotlight filed both an opposition to the motion to tax costs and the instant motion for leave to amend memorandum of costs. In the instant motion, Spotlight argues that when preparing its opposition to the motion to tax costs, it discovered that its original memorandum of costs inadvertently omitted certain trial-related costs because it did not realize that it could ask for those costs. In its proposed amended memorandum of costs, Spotlight is also reducing its originally requested costs by $60,000 in light of issues raised by StubHub in its motion to tax costs. Spotlight now seeks $520,762.46 in costs, broken down as follows: $5,441.83 for filing and motion fees, $1,443.88 for jury fees, $280,214.18 for deposition costs, $173.45 for service of process, $112.83 for witness fees, $29,090.09 for court reporter fees, $1,431.10 for fees for electronic filing or service, and $202,855.07 for “other”. The memorandum of costs defines the “other” costs as trial travel costs, trial technology services, and exhibits.

The question at this time is whether Spotlight may amend its memorandum of costs. The reasonableness of the new costs, if added, will be determined later. Spotlight’s motion is based on Code of Civ. Proc. Section 473(b).

In StubHub’s opposition, it argues that Code of Civ. Proc. Section 437 would not allow Spotlight to amend the memorandum of costs due to ignorance of the law. StubHub also argues that Spotlight failed to establish that its request for relief is timely. Finally, StubHub argues that if the motion is granted, then it must have the opportunity to file a new motion to tax costs and should be entitled to recover its fees and costs.

Spotlight argues in its reply that Section 473(b) does allow it to amend its memorandum of costs. Spotlight also argues that its request is timely, and that no prejudice will result if the Court grants relief. Finally, Spotlight argues that StubHub is not entitled to fees and costs.

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANT

Plaintiff Spotlight’s motion for leave to file an amended memorandum of costs is granted.

ANALYSIS

Timeliness

StubHub argues that Spotlight did not show diligence in filing its application for relief under Code of Civ. Proc. Section 473 because Spotlight did not file its motion for leave to amend until six weeks after StubHub’s motion to tax costs was filed. (See Stafford v. Mach (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1181 (party made no showing of diligence and grant of relief under section 473 was reversed).)

An application for relief under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) must be made “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” Here, Spotlight claims that its attorneys discovered the omitted costs when they were preparing Spotlight’s opposition to the motion to tax cost. They then promptly contacted StubHub’s attorneys, and filed this motion after StubHub did not agree to the amendment.

The Court finds that Spotlight filed this motion within a reasonable time.

Leave to Amend

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473(b).) A trial court has broad discretion in allowing relief from a late filing due to mistake or inadvertence where there is an absence of a showing of prejudice (as defined in the applicable law) to the opposing party. (Hoover Community Hotel Development Corp. v. Thomson (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 485, 488 (holding that court may award costs despite untimely filing of the bill of costs); Pollard v. Saxe & Yolles Dev. Co. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 374, 381 (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting permission to file a late bill of costs absent showing of prejudice).)

“Code of Civil Procedure Section 473 has long been considered a proper mechanism by which a party may seek relief for failing to file timely a cost memorandum.” (Ganey v. Doran (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 901, 910.)

Whether to grant relief under Section 473 rests in the Court’s sound discretion. In this case, Spotlight timely filed a cost memorandum and is now seeking leave to file an amended one “late.”

Though the Court appreciates StubHub’s arguments that Spotlight’s attorneys should have known to include the omitted costs in the original filing, it does not serve the interests of justice to deny Spotlight leave to file an amended memorandum of costs, particularly when case law allows for the late filing of memorandums of costs. Furthermore, Spotlight’s proposed amended memorandum of costs removes requested costs that StubHub had disputed in its motion to tax costs.

Therefore, the Court gives Spotlight leave to file the amend memorandum of costs. StubHub will also be given the opportunity to file a new motion to tax costs should it choose to do so.

Fees and Costs

StubHub argues in its opposition that if the Court grants Spotlight’s motion, which is being granted, then StubHub is entitled to recover fees and costs.

Code of Civ. Proc. Section 437(b) includes a provision for fees and costs that states “The court shall, whenever relief is granted based on an attorney’s affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties.” Courts have found that this provision only applies to mandatory relief when granting relief from defaults, default judgments, and dismissals, and that discretionary relief, which is what Spotlight seeks here, is available for a broad array of orders. (Martin Potts & Assocs., Inc. v. Corsair, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 432, 438.) Mandatory relief comes with a price – the reasonable legal fees and costs – while discretionary relief does not. (Id.)

Because Spotlight has sought discretionary relief, not mandatory relief, under Section 473(b), Spotlight is not required to pay StubHub’s attorney fees and costs. Nonetheless, the court exercises its discretion to award StubHub reasonable fees to oppose this motion, since these fees were imposed upon it as a result of plaintiff’s error. The court has reviewed the declaration of Ms. Saber and finds that declaration supports the hourly rates of the attorneys and paralegals involved and that fees in the amount of $9500 were reasonably incurred in opposing this motion.  Such fees are due and payable within 30 days.  

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Spotlight’s motion for leave to file an amended memorandum of costs is granted. The amended memorandum of costs is deemed filed. Defendant StubHub must file any new motion to tax costs within 15 days of this order.  Plaintiff to pay defendant’s fees and costs in the amount of $9500 within 30 days.

The hearing on the motion to tax costs set for April 2, 2025, is vacated.