Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 20STCV19168, Date: 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19168    Hearing Date: October 10, 2022    Dept: 31

MOTION TO TAX COSTS IS DENIED 

Background 

On May 20, 2020, Plaintiffs Jorge Robles and Meshal Kashifalghita (“Kash”) filed the instant action against Defendant Maribel Hinojosa and Does 1 through 100. 

On August 01, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint asserting causes of action for: 

1)     Defamation, Libel Per Se

2)     Defamation: Slander

3)     Violation of the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.)

4)     Negligence

5)     Breach of Fiduciary Duty

6)     Breach of the Duty of Fair Representation 

On August 30, 2022, Defendant Maribel Hinojosa filed a Cross-Complaint. 

A Judgment of Dismissal was filed on July 28, 2022, and Defendant California Correctional Pease Officer Association (“PAAC:) was dismissed from this action. 

On August 30, 2022, PAAC filed a Memorandum of Costs. 

On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Tax Costs. 

On September 27, 2022, Defendant PAAC and Defendant California Correctional Peace Officers Association (“CCPOA”) filed an opposition. 

On October 03, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Reply. 

Legal Standard 

A prevailing party in entitled to recover costs, including attorneys’ fees, as a matter of right.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032(a)(4), 1032(b), 1033.5.)  In a breach of contract action, attorneys’ fees shall be awarded when a contract provides that one of the parties or the prevailing party shall be awarded attorneys’ fees in an action on that contract.  (Civ. Code, §1717.)   

The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar” method, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. A computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award. The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.  (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.)  Such an approach anchors the trial court’s analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney’s services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary.  (Id. at 48, fn.23.)  After the trial court has performed the lodestar calculations, it shall consider whether the total award so calculated under all of the circumstances of the case is more than a reasonable amount and, if so, shall reduce the section 1717 award so that it is a reasonable figure.  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095-96.) 

The factors considered in determining the modification of the lodestar include the nature and difficulty of the litigation, the amount of money involved, the skill required and employed to handle the case, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case.  (EnPalm, LLC v. Teitler Family Trust (2008) 162 Cal. App. 4th 770, 774 (emphasis in original).)  A negative modifier was appropriate when duplicative work had been performed.  (Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819.)  

Discussion 

Plaintiffs seek to tax Item 4 for the Deposition Transcription Costs for the Depositions of Charles Hughes; Glen Stailey and Maribel Hinojosa. (Mot. Ex. A.) 

Defense counsel represents both the Parole Agents Association of California (“PAAC”) and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (“CCPOA”) in this action. 

Plaintiffs assert Defense counsel sought recoupment of costs on behalf of CCOPA in its previously filed Memorandum of Costs for the same deposition transcript fees it now seeks on behalf of PAAC. (Mot. Ex. B.) 

Defendants assert that when CCOPA filed its memorandum of costs, it sought only half of the costs for each of the depositions because at the time PAAC was still a party to the case and Defense counsel did not feel it appropriate to obtain the entirety of the costs expended on behalf of both clients. (Ross Decl. Ex. 4.) Defense Counsel provides copies of the invoices for the deposition transcripts of Charles Hughes, Glen Stailey, and Marabel Hinojosa that were the basis of this item in the memorandum of costs. (Ross Decl. Ex. A.) 

Plaintiffs assert Defendant PAAC is seeking to recoup the full amount of costs, not half the costs. However, having reviewed the Memorandum of Costs and the attached invoices, the Court finds that PAAC appropriately seeks only half the costs, not the full costs, of the depositions. 

For the reasons stated, Plaintiffs’ request to Tax Item 4 is DENIED. 

Conclusion 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Tax Item 4 is DENIED. 

Plaintiff to give notice.