A prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding, except as otherwise expressly provided by statute. “This means that the prevailing party is entitled to all of his costs unless another statute provides otherwise. Absent such statutory authority, the court has no discretion to deny costs to the prevailing party.” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 128-129.)

However, a non-prevailing party may dispute any or all of the items in the prevailing party’s memorandum of costs by a motion to strike (challenging the entire costs memorandum) or tax (challenging particular items or amounts) costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b).)

How to Structure the Motion

Even where parties are unsuccessful as to certain matters, prevailing parties as defined by statute are entitled to recover all costs reasonably incurred, and proof that parties were unsuccessful on particular items is not tantamount to a demonstration that such costs were unreasonably incurred. (Michell v. Olick (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1200.)

A “prevailing party” is defined as:

1. the party with a net monetary recovery;
2. the defendant in whose favor a dismissal was entered;
3. the defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant recovers any relief; and
4. the defendant against whom plaintiff has not recovered any relief.

(Code of Civ. Proc., § 1032(a)(4).)

Section 1033.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure “codified existing case law and set forth the items of costs which may or may not be recoverable in a civil action.” (Ladas v. California State Automobile Association (Ladas) (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-774.)

During the hearing, a “verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary.” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) “This procedure provides an orderly and efficient way of placing disputed costs at issue on a line item basis.” (612 South LLC v. Laconic Ltd. Partnership (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1285.)

“Initial verification will suffice to establish the reasonable necessity of the costs claimed. 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, 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267 (1998).)

It is not enough for the losing party to attack costs merely by opining that the costs were unnecessary or unreasonable; the losing party has the burden to present evidence that the claimed costs are not recoverable. (Seever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557.) A party's mere statements in the points and authorities accompanying its notice of motion to strike cost bill and the declaration of its counsel are insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing that the costs were necessarily incurred. (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266.)

The Court“s Descision

“When any party recovers other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the ‘prevailing party’ shall be as determined by the court, and under those circumstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or not and, if allowed may apportion costs between the parties on the same or adverse sides pursuant to rules adopted under Section 1034.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1032(a)(4).)

In ruling on a motion to tax costs, the Court determines whether the statute expressly allows the particular item and whether it appears proper on its face. (Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 71.) If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show that the costs are unnecessary or unreasonable. (Id.) Where costs are not expressly allowed by statute, the burden is on the party claiming costs to show the costs were reasonable and necessary. (Id.) Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Id.; Beneficial Standard Properties, Inc. v. Scharps (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 227, 232; Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 245.)

Statute of Limitations

“A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first. The memorandum of costs 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1).)

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