What is a Motion to Tax Costs?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Tax Costs

Recent Rulings on Motion to Tax Costs

JEFF REINKE VS ELMER ERNESTO LOPEZ PLIEGO ET AL

On April 6, 2020, Security filed the instant Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs. On April 9, 2020, Security filed the instant Motion on Lien Application. On April 21, 2020, DOT filed an Opposition to the Motion to Tax Costs. On April 24, 2020, Reinke filed an Oppo. On April 29, 2020, Security filed a Reply to the Opposition to Motion to Tax Costs.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO VS CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TRANSPO

On April 6, 2020, Security filed the instant Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs. On April 9, 2020, Security filed the instant Motion on Lien Application. On April 21, 2020, DOT filed an Opposition to the Motion to Tax Costs. On April 24, 2020, Reinke filed an Oppo. On April 29, 2020, Security filed a Reply to the Opposition to Motion to Tax Costs.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

KUNG VS. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS FILED BY JASON KUNG * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff’s motion to strike or tax costs is granted in part. The Judgment Entered Against Plaintiff This is a medical malpractice case brought against a hospital (the County), and against an emergency room physician formerly employed at the hospital (Buoncristiani). Earlier this year both defendants moved for summary judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

MIKE KALTA ET AL VS FLEET 101 INC ET AL

Any motion to tax costs must be filed and served within 15 days of service of the memorandum of costs. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(1).) The May 29, 2018 memorandum of costs was served by mail, so any motion to tax costs was due by June 18, 2018. Defendant did not file a motion to tax costs, and in any event the requested costs that they challenge in their opposition are recoverable. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to $10,563.96 in costs pursuant to their May 29, 2018 memorandum of costs.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

OLIVAS V. ONE WAY DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.

On a motion to strike or tax costs, if the items on their face appear to be proper charges, the 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. (Ladas v. California State Auto. Ass’n. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774–776; Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266 [mere statements in points and authorities and declaration of counsel insufficient to rebut prima facie showing].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SCOTT DUNCOMBE VS BARFRESH FOOD GROUP INC

First, a motion to strike or tax costs is the appropriate vehicle to contemplate the validity of costs. Defendant waived its right to enforce the November 13, 2017, order by not seeking enforcement of the order until after the trial occurred and the court entered judgment. Moreover, defendant did not meet the requirements to establish extrinsic fraud, as defendant has not been fraudulently prevented from presenting its claim. Second, the court ruled it had subject matter jurisdiction on October 1, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JEMAL WILLIAMS VS HOOSHANG RADNIA AS TRUSTEE OF THE HOOSHANG RADNIA FAMILY TRUST, ET AL.

DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO TAX COSTS ARE PLACED OFF CALENDAR. TRIAL DATE SET FOR DECEMBER 4, 2020 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ROSA CISNEROS VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A

GM also argues that counsel’s recoverable costs should be limited, but as noted by Cisneros, GM did not file a timely motion to tax costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b) [“Any notice of motion to strike or tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum.”].) Consequently, the Court declines to strike or tax any of Cisneros’s claimed costs. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Cisneros’s motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MIRELES VS. LUPERCIO

Motion to Tax Costs filed by Defendant Diane Lupercio Defendant Diane Lupercio’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Tax Costs claimed by plaintiff Christian Mireles is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The prevailing party in any civil action is entitled to recover costs as a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc. §1032(b); Charton v. Harkey (2016) 247 Cal. App. 4th 730, 737.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

HERRERA VS. RESIDENCE INN

HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE OR TAX COSTS FILED BY TYLER MALACHI, JAMIE GARCIA, WINSTON HERRERA * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff Winston Herrera dismissed his PAGA complaint, after two other plaintiffs had been substituted into the case to proceed on the same matter as representatives of the State.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

KRIPLE V. CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD

Motion to Strike or Tax Costs The motion of the respondent to strike the tax bill on jurisdictional grounds is DENIED. Petitioner submitted a proposed writ of mandate with the court but apparently never served it on the respondent. The motion to tax three items on the Memorandum of Costs is GRANTED. None of those charges are authorized by the Code of Civil Procedure. Costs are TAXED in the amount of $2,028.50.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

LAW FINANCE GROUP, LLC VS SARAH PLOTT KEY

SARAH PLOTT KEY (19STCP04251) Counsel for Petitioner: Christopher Frost, Taylor Simeone (Eisner, LLP) Counsel for Respondent: James Felton (G&B Law LLP); Jonathan Wershow (Wershow & Cole LLP) Motion By petitioner to STRIKE AND Tax Costs (filed 03/26/2020); motion by respondent for attorney’s fees (filed 04/20/2020) The court takes these motions off calendar and stays the action until the final resolution of the appeal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

RANASINGHE VS. SHAYAN

Thompson (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1549] If the items on their face appear to be proper charges, the 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. [Ladas v. California State Auto. Ass'n (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774-776].

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

YANCE GOMEZ ET AL VS FCA US LLC

The motion to tax costs on the motion and filing fees is denied. Item 5: Service of Process FCA seeks to tax costs in the amount of $69.50 claimed for service of process. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(4), the costs for service of process are expressly allowed. FCA has failed to demonstrate that these costs were not reasonable or necessary to the litigation. Accordingly, the motion to tax costs is denied as to these costs.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

DAVIS VS IRONWOOD STATE PRISON ET AL

Accordingly, the motion to tax costs should be granted as to the claimed travel costs in the amount of $2,753.28 (mileage/parking/Uber); and denied in the amount of $4,928.77 (lodging during trial.) As to messenger costs, messenger fees are neither specifically enumerated as allowable costs in § 1033.5(a) nor prohibited in § 1033.5(b). Thus, messenger fees may only be recoverable in the trial court’s discretion if “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

COUNTY OF SOLANO, ET AL. V. RECOLOGY, ET AL.

Motion to Tax Costs TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs is denied in part and granted in part. Plaintiff’s motion is denied to the extent that he challenges the amounts claimed for messenger costs incurred to file and serve documents during the course of the action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

GARY WRIGHT VS. BIOPRODUCTION GROUP, INC. A CALFORNIA CORPORATION

In response, Gary Wright (hereafter Petitioner and/or Wright) filed his Motion to Strike or Tax Costs. Because both motions are set for hearing on the same day, the Court hereby issues a single ruling as to both motions in the interests of efficiency and economy.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

PIMENTEL VS SMITH

Motion to tax costs presently set for 7/16/20 is continued to 8/27/20, at 8:30am, in D-4. All other hearings to remain as currently scheduled.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

However, Defendant’s motion to tax costs on appeal is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB, INC. VS TOMMY NGO, ET AL.

Party: Office of Problem Gambling SUBJECT: (2) Motion to Tax Costs Moving Party: Office of Problem Gambling Resp. Party: California Commerce Club, Inc. California Commerce Club, Inc.’s motion for attorney’s fees is DENIED. Office of Problem Gambling’s motion to tax costs is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JIAN LIU ET AL VS ZHAN WU LIN ET AL

Defendant did not file a motion to strike or tax costs. However, some of Plaintiff’s items are not allowable as costs. The right to costs is strictly governed by statute, so the Court has no discretion to award costs that are not statutorily authorized. (Sanford v. Rasnick (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1121, 1128; Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) The memorandum of costs lists attorney fees.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

THOMAS V. ST. JOSEPH HEALTH SYSTEM

Motion to Strike or Tax Costs The Court DENIES the Motion by Plaintiff John Thomas M.D. to Strike or Tax the Memorandum of Costs filed by Defendants St. Joseph Health System, Covenant Health System and Covenant Medical Center. The Court will enter an order awarding Defendants $10,809.72 in costs as prevailing parties pursuant to CCP Section 1032. A. The Memorandum of Costs was timely filed. The rules and procedure for claiming and contesting prejudgment costs are promulgated by the Judicial Council.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

TRUE HARMONY INC ET AL VS ROSARIO PERRY ET AL

The pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper that is the subject of Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs, was withdrawn on February 7, 2020. Pursuant to Section 128.7(c)(1), the motion was filed but not served on January 24, 2020, allowing Plaintiff until February 14, 2020 to withdraw the contested Motion to Tax Costs. Having withdrawn the Motion to Tax Costs, pursuant to Section 128.7(c)(1), the instant motion should have never been filed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

HUSSEIN V. RAZIN

Motion to Tax Costs The motion of the defendants to tax costs on appeal of prevailing party Ahmed D. Hussein is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Entire Cost Bill The defendants’ motion to strike the entire cost bill on the ground the costs claimed in the memorandum of costs are “patently improper” is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

STALWORK V. WATSON

The Watsons now file a Motion to Tax Costs pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b), to exclude certain non-allowable costs in Stalwork’s cost bill. Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a) sets forth allowable costs and subsection (b) sets forth costs that are not allowable, except where expressly authorized by law. Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation and shall be reasonable in amount.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 156     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.