Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV38239, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38239    Hearing Date: July 27, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff Sarmen Essagholian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Letter Four, Inc., Lauren Adams, Jeremy Baker, Alfred Jr. Anderson, Shieda Monique Brown Anderson, Willie D. Campbel, and Does 1 through 25, inclusive (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) alleging causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) negligent entrustment, and (3) negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of employee arising from a motor vehicle accident.

On April 14, 2022, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted. On May 26, 2022, the Court heard Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and the Court adopted its ruling denying the motion as its final order.  On June 7, 2022, Defendant served their memorandum of costs listing $2028.60 for deposition costs (Item 4) and $919.55 for service of process costs (Item 5.) Plaintiff moves to tax costs.

          Generally, a prevailing party will be entitled to recover its costs.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b).)  Most costs are obtained by filing a memorandum of costs or incorporated into the judgment.  (Lucky United Props. Inc. v. Lee (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 125, 137.)  A party challenging the amounts claimed may file a motion to tax costs, which must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum.  (Cal. Rules of Court., rule 3.1700(b)(1), 8.278(c)(2).)  “Unless objection is made to the entire cost memorandum, the motion . . . must refer to each item objected to by the same number and appear in the same order as the corresponding cost item claimed on the memorandum of costs and must state why the item is objectionable.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(2).)

“In ruling upon a motion to tax costs, the trial court's first determination is whether the statute expressly allows the particular item and whether it appears proper on its face.  If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show the costs to be unnecessary or unreasonable.”  (Foothill-De Anza Cmty. College Dist. v. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 29-30.)  “Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court.”  (Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) 

Plaintiff’s Motion to tax costs was timely filed on June 22, 2022.  Plaintiff moves to tax Items 4 and 5.  Plaintiff argues Defendants’ memorandum of costs fails to show that the costs were reasonably necessary to conduct litigation, that the costs incurred are reasonable, and specifically, (1) Defendants did not pay for the Court reporter and videographer for the depositions of Lauren Adams, Jeremy Baker, and Sarmen Essagholian. Costs incurred of $2028.60 in Deposition cost is unjustified and (2) Defendants are not clear as the reason they incurred $919.55 in service of process costs.

In opposition, Defendants argue that the deposition costs were for acquiring the transcripts from the Court Reporter after each deposition. (Declaration of Sean A. Fredin (“Fredin Decl.”) ¶ 3.) Letter Four Defendants do not believe there is an actual argument that the transcripts are unnecessary or not a reasonable cost in litigation and that, therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion as to deposition costs should be denied.

Defendants also argue that the Court requires courtesy copies of all moving papers to be delivered to the department ruling on the motion. (See Frist Amended Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures At The Spring Street Courthouse at pg. 4, ¶ 9; Fredin Decl. ¶ 7) Here, several motions were taken, which created the need to draft moving papers and provide the Court courtesy copies of the same documents on several occasions. (Fredin Decl. ¶ 8) Therefore, the cost to provide the Court courtesy copies of moving papers was both necessary and reasonable.

As to Item 4 for $2028.60 in Deposition cost, Defendants submit three invoices for the amount of $509.50, $743.65, and $775.45 for the deposition transcripts totaling $2,028.60. (Fredin Decl. ¶ 3-6; See Ex. 1-3.) Defendants argue they are entitled to deposition costs.

As to Item 5 for $919.55 in service of process cost, Defendants admit that there were some double charges in their billing system, and the cost for this service should be $792.90. (Fredin Decl. ¶ 9.)

Having reviewed the moving, opposing, and replying papers, the Court finds the costs claimed by Defendants are authorized by statute, reasonable, and necessary.

First, 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; 612 South LLC v. Laconic Limited Partnership (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1285.)  “There is no requirement that copies of bills, invoices, statements, or any other such documents be attached to the memorandum.  Only if the costs have been put in issue via a motion to tax costs must supporting documentation be submitted.”  (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4^th 1258, 1267.)  Therefore, Defendants’ memorandum of costs is not procedurally deficient.

Second, Defendants claim costs for three things: deposition costs (transcript fees) and service of process cost in which Defendant Letter Four utilized AAA’s services to provide the Court with courtesy copies. These items are allowable under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1033.5, subdivisions(a)(3)(A) and (4)(B). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted, which resolved the case for Defendants, and the transcript of Plaintiff’s deposition was used in support of Defendants’ motion. The costs are reasonable and supported by exhibits.

Accordingly, the Motion to strike the entire memorandum of costs or to tax Items 4 and 5 is DENIED. 

However, the Court will not award more than what was claimed in the memorandum of costs. Therefore, the costs in item 5 are reduced to $792.90

Moving party to give notice.

          Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.