Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22VECV02602, Date: 2025-04-01 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 22VECV02602    Hearing Date: April 1, 2025    Dept: 45

mariyan khosravidzadeh v. omid  ahmadi

 

motion to tax defendant omid ahmadi’s memorandum of costs

 

Date of Hearing:          April 1, 2025                            Trial Date:       September 9, 2024

Department:               45                                            Case No.:         22VECV02602

 

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Mariyan Khosravizadeh

Responding Party:       Defendant Omid Ahmadi

 

BACKGROUND

 

            In November 2021, Plaintiff gave Defendant Omid Ahmadi $800,000 in cash for purchase of $800,000 worth of Bitcoin pursuant to an oral agreement.  Defendant allegedly failed to purchase the Bitcoin despite taking the $800,000 in cash.  When Plaintiff discovered that no Bitcoin had been deposited in her Instawallet account, Plaintiff demanded that Defendant return the cash.  Defendant refused. 

 

            On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging (1) fraud and deceit; (2) breach of oral contract; (3) conversion; (4) replevin/claim & delivery; (5) violation of Penal Code §496. 

 

            Court trial commenced on September 9, 2024 and concluded on October 30, 2024.  The Court issued a Proposed Statement of Decision on December 23, 2024 against Plaintiff and in Defendant’s favor. 

 

            On January 28, 2025, judgment was entered in Defendant’s favor and against Plaintiff.  On February 3, 2025, Defendant filed a memorandum of costs.

 

            On February 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Tax Costs.  On March 18, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion to Tax Costs.  On March 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition.

 

[Tentative] Ruling

 

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED in part as to Item 15 for translator fees.  Defendant may recover translator fees pursuant to CCP §1033.5(c)(4).  However, the invoice provided only supports recovery of $4000, not $4500 as listed on the memorandum of costs.

 

LEGAL STANDARD

 

            To obtain costs, the prevailing party must file and serve a memorandum of costs, which “must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case.” (CRC 3.1700(a).)

 

            Copies of bills, invoices, statements, or other documentation need not be attached to the memorandum (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267), but the memorandum must provide enough detail to determine the cost sought is statutorily awardable (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 132.)  If the items on the face of the cost memorandum appear to be proper charges, the verified cost memorandum is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and it is the challenging party who bears the burden to show the costs were not reasonable or necessary.  (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.)  The only identifiable requirement for a memo of costs is that it set forth the costs claimed and be verified.  (CRC 3.1700(a)(1).) 

 

            The mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a proper objection to an item if the necessity of that item appears doubtful, does not appear to be proper on its face (Nelson, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at 131), or presents a legal question (Fennessy v. Deleuw-Cather Corporation (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1195–1996 (motion to tax questioning entitlement to deposition costs incurred by all six defendants represented by the same counsel was sufficient to place the cost at issue without additional declarations or affidavits).)  If section 1033.5 expressly allows the particular item and it appears proper on its face, the burden is on the objecting party to show the costs to be unnecessary or unreasonable. (Nelson, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at 131.)

 

            If costs are properly placed at issue, the burden of proof shifts to the party seeking costs to justify them by providing evidence and supporting documentation that the costs were reasonable and necessarily incurred. (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn., supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 774; Jones, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at 1267.)

 

ANALYSIS

 

            Evidentiary Objections

 

            Plaintiff’s Objection—OVERRULE

 

            Defendant may recover translator fees in the amount of $4000 pursuant to CCP §1033.5(c)(4)

 

            Plaintiff moves to tax Item 15, “Other” costs in the amount of $4,500 for translator Ali Hashemi, who provided translation services in preparation for and at trial.  Plaintiff argues the costs was not reasonably necessary to the litigation under CCP §1033.5(a).  Plaintiff argues translator services are not listed as a recoverable cost under CCP §1033.5(a).  Plaintiff argues the only allowable interpreter fees are set forth under CCP §1033.5(a)(12) for “court interpreter fees for a qualified court interpreter authorized by the court for an indigent person represented by a qualified legal services project…”  Plaintiff argues interpreters are provided by the Court for free upon request.  Plaintiff argues no documentation has been provided to support the claimed $4,500 in translator fees.

 

            Defendant argues the translator fees are sought pursuant to CCP §1033.5(c)(4), which can be awarded in the court’s discretion.  Defendant also submits the billing statement of the translator for $4000. 

 

            Plaintiff argues in response that CCP §1033.5(a)(12) specifically addresses the circumstances under which interpreter costs may be recovered as a matter of right.  Plaintiff argues Defendant therefore cannot recover interpreter fees outside of those circumstances.  Plaintiff argues the amount of fees requested ($4500) is unsupported by the translator’s invoice for $4000. 

 

            A prevailing party may recover as a matter of right, “[c]ourt interpreter fees for a qualified court interpreter authorized by the court for an indigent person represented by a qualified legal services project, as defined in Section 6213 of the Business and Professions Code, or a pro bono attorney, as defined in Section 8030.4 of the Business and Professions Code.”  (CCP §1033.5(a)(12).)  “Items not mentioned in this section and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court’s discretion.”  (CCP §1033.5(c)(4).) 

           

            Interpreter fees that do not meet the criteria under CCP §1033.5(a)(12) may be awarded in the court’s discretion under CCP §1033.5(c)(4).  (Segal v. Asics America Corporation (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 659, 670 (interpreter fees incurred at trial were properly awarded in the court’s discretion pursuant to CCP §1033.5(c)(4) where evidence established defendant was not proficient in English).) 

 

            Here, Defense counsel testifies that Ahmadi is not a native English speaker, and both counsel and Ahmadi required an interpreter to prepare for trial.  (Sullivan Dec., ¶¶2-5.)  Defense counsel’s declaration establishes that the interpreter was reasonably necessary to the litigation. 

 

            However, the translator’s invoice only reflects a charge of $4000, not $4500 as represented on the memorandum of costs.  As such, Item 15 is taxed in the amount of $500, leaving $4000 in recoverable translator fees. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

            For these reasons, the motion to tax is granted in part as to Item 15 of Defendant’s memorandum of costs.  Item 15 is taxed in the amount of $500, leaving $4000 in interpreter fees.