“[A] prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032(4)(b).) However, the non-prevailing party can dispute the costs listed in the prevailing party's costs memorandum by filing a motion to tax costs.
The “prevailing party” includes “the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant. If 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 Civ. Proc., § 1032(4).)
On a motion to tax costs, “[i]f the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. 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. However, because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized.” (Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.)
“Unless objection is made to the entire cost memorandum, the motion to strike or tax costs 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 3.1700(2).) “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.4th 1258, 1267.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a) sets forth items that are allowable as costs. Allowable costs under Section 1033.5 must be “reasonably necessary to the conduct of this litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation” and “reasonable in amount.” Any items “not mentioned in this section and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court's discretion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(16)(c)(2), (3), and (4).)
“The court’s first determination, therefore, is whether the statute expressly allows the item, and whether it appears proper on its face. If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show them to be unnecessary or unreasonable.” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) The objecting party does not meet this burden by arguing that the costs were not necessary or reasonable, but must present evidence and prove that the costs are not recoverable. (Litt v. Med. Ctr. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1224; Seever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557.)
Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1700, “any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. If the cost of memorandum was served electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4).” Cal. Rules of Court 3.1700(1).
“The party claiming costs and the party contesting costs may agree to extend the time for serving and filing the cost memorandum and a motion to strike or tax costs. This agreement must be confirmed in writing, specify the extended date for service, and be filed with the clerk. In the absence of an agreement, the court may extend the times for serving and filing the cost memorandum or the notice of motion to strike or tax costs for a period not to exceed 30 days.” Cal. Rules of Court 3.1700(3).
Therefore, the Court denies the motion to tax costs. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs is denied. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: December 2, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court
Los Angeles County, CA
.: BC553552 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO TAX COSTS Date: December 2, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTIES: Defendants California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) and Steve Gordon, Director of the DMV RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiffs California DUI Lawyers Association and Steven R. Mandell The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
On May 6, 2019 the Court also addressed the issue of who was the prevailing party entitled to the recovery of costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032. Exercising the discretion granted it in this case under §1032, the Court found that LAWPM was the prevailing party on the 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th causes of action and Alameda was the prevailing party on the 5th cause of action. This finding was repeated in the Judgment entered on May 14, 2019.
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Tax Costs Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On September 19, 2018, Plaintiff Shanna Rucker (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Raul Lopez, Adriana Osoy, City of Los Angeles, Wincal, LLC (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50.
Los Angeles County, CA
Cross-Defendants are the prevailing parties under CCP Section 1032 given that they prevailed on their motion for judgment on the pleadings (and no leave to amend was granted). The costs claimed are all reasonable and necessary. As a result, the Court denies Cross-Complainant’s motion in its entirety and awards Cross-Defendants the total amount of costs claimed, $1,915.00. Cross-Defendants are ordered to give notice.
Orange County, CA
Based on the Stipulation and Order filed on 11-17-20 under ROA No. 688 and the court’s 11-17-20 Minute Order, Defendants’ (Jason Jeffery and Miguel Puente) Motion to Tax Costs (filed on 2-25-20 under ROA No. 615 and scheduled for hearing on 11-24-20) and Plaintiff’s (David Mann) Motion to Tax Costs (filed on 3-2-20 under ROA No. 619) are continued to 2-23-21 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C19.
Orange County, CA
(Code of Civil Procedure section 1032.) Defendant served the Memorandum of Costs on Plaintiff (Elise Sharon) on 9-30-19. Plaintiff did not file a motion to strike or tax costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b).) Based upon these facts, Defendant prematurely filed both of his Memorandum of Costs. The Memorandum of Costs on Appeal was filed before the remittitur was issued. The Memorandum of Costs was filed before judgment has been entered.
Orange County, CA
Nor has Plaintiff established that she was not properly served with Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs for relief under CCP 473(d). The filing of the proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper.
Riverside County, CA
Lacy and Jacquesha Lacy bring this motion to tax costs. Having obtained a defense verdict, Defendants County of San Diego, Sean Ochos and Don Wood are the prevailing parties, and entitled to an award of recoverable costs. CCP §1032. Defendants submitted a Memorandum of Costs, indicating a total of $23,571.00 in costs. There were no "court-ordered transcripts." Accordingly, defendants have withdrawn the $1,955.00 costs for "court-ordered transcripts."
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
San Diego County, CA
Specific costs will be addressed in the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's pending motion to tax costs. Defendant to give notice of the Court's ruling. ANALYSIS On 10-17-19, Defendant sent Plaintiff a 998 Offer to Compromise ("§ 998 Offer") in the amount of $10,000. On that same day, Plaintiff rejected the § 998 Offer. At trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant.
Ventura County, CA
TENTATIVE RULING The Court intends to GRANT IN PART Plaintiff Nicholas Saffire's Motion to Tax Costs. Specifically, the Court intends to DENY the motion as to cost items nos. 1 (filing and motion fees), 4 (deposition costs) and 8 (expert witness fees awarded per CCP § 998). The Court intends to partially GRANT the motion as to cost item no. 11. The Court has questions regarding cost tem no. 5.
Ventura County, CA
For these reasons, the motion to tax costs is granted in part, and denied in part.
Los Angeles County, CA
Paula Charron’s Motion to Tax Costs Originally Filed 08/01/19 – HEARING REQUIRED. Counsel to apprise of status of stipulation.
Stanislaus County, CA
Lastly, Defendant asserts the amount of time spent on Plaintiffs' fee motion and opposition to Defendant's motion to tax costs is excessive. Based on the rates Defendant identified in its opposition, it appears Plaintiffs spent a total of 36.5 hours on these tasks, which the court agrees is excessive. The court reduces this time by 50%, to 18 hours.
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
“The failure to file a motion to tax costs constitutes a waiver of the right to object.” (Douglas v. Willis (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 287, 289.) “After the time has passed for a motion to strike or tax costs or for determination of that motion the clerk must immediately enter the costs on the judgment.” (CRC Rule 3.1700(b)(4).) As of November 17, 2020, there is no indication that any Motion to Tax/Strike Costs has been filed.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
"[S]ection 1033.5 sets forth the items that are and are not allowable as the costs recoverable by a prevailing party under section 1032[.]" Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 49, 52. CCP § 1033.5(a) enumerates the items allowable as costs, whereas CCP § 1033.5(b) lists items not recoverable as costs. See Segal v. Asics Am. Corp. (2020) 50 Cal. App. 4th 659, 664. The court has discretion to allow or deny costs for items not explicitly identified in CCP §§ 1033.5(a) and (b). See Cal.
Other
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
Accordingly the Court is inclined to vacate that portion of its October 22, 2020 order granting Cross-Complainants Lim and Lopez’s motion to tax costs as to $160,000 of attorney’s fees on appeal on procedural grounds (page 4, lines 14-23; and page 6, lines 8-13). The court is further inclined to recalendar Cross-Complainants Lim and Lopez’s motion to tax costs as to $160,000 of attorney’s fees on appeal for the continued hearing date of December 8, 2020 at 8:30 am.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs Derrick Martin and Laura Martin bring this motion to tax costs. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants Anthony John, DDS and Pinnacle Endodontics, Dental Practice of Anthony D. John, DDS, MS, are not entitled to costs because the parties had a settlement agreement for a waiver of costs/waiver of malicious prosecution claim in exchange for a dismissal with prejudice.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
San Diego County, CA
Analysis: Respondent is the prevailing party as defined in Code of Civil Procedure section 1032. See, Adler v. Vaicius (1993) 21 CA4th 1770 (the court may use the general definition of “prevailing party” set forth in CCP §1032). Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 provides that the prevailing party in any action brought under this section may be awarded court costs and attorney’s fees in the discretion of the trial court. Id. see also, Krug v. Maschmeier (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 796.
Candice Garcia-Rodrigo
Riverside County, CA
Defendant filed a motion to tax costs on November 4, 2020, which is set to be heard on December 17, 2020. As such, the Court will not award costs by way of this motion. Accordingly, the motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $14,145.00. The Court will reserve its ruling on costs for the December 17, 2020 hearing on Defendant’s motion to tax costs.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs in the amount of $2,456.00 for the deposition costs of Defendants is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
Conclusion Moving Defendants’ motion to tax costs is granted. Moving Defendants to give notice.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Los Angeles County, CA
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(a), the prevailing party “includes the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.”
San Luis Obispo County, CA
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES; MOTION TO TAX COSTS (Civ. Code § 52(a); Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1702) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Julio Martinez’s Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $950.00. ANALYSIS: On August 28, 2018, Plaintiff Julio Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for discrimination on the basis of disability against Defendants Elgio Gonzalez and Isabel M. Gonzalez (“Defendants”).
Los Angeles County, CA
Hearing Date: November 13, 2020 Moving Parties: Plaintiff Ana Mejia Responding Party: Defendant Hyundai Motor America Motion to Tax Costs The court considered the moving and opposition papers. RULING The motion is DENIED as to Items 1, 5, and 14. The motion is DENIED as to Item 16 except for the amount of $8.00, which is taxed. BACKGROUND On April 30, 2019, Ana Mejia filed a complaint against Hyundai Motor America for violation of statutory obligations under the Song Beverly Act.
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
