What is a Motion to Tax Costs?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Tax Costs

Recent Rulings on Motion to Tax Costs

JEFFREY NATHAN PURVEY VS YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF BURBANK, CALIFORNIA

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

  • Hearing

CALIFORNIA DUI LAWYERS ASSN ET AL VS CALIFORNIA DEPT OF MOTO

.: 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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ALAMEDA SQUARE OWNER LLC VS THE LOS ANGELES WHOLESALE PRODUCE MARKET, LLC

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JENNIFER LITTLE VS JONATHAN LOPEZ ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

GOLDEN RAIN FOUNDATION OF LAGUNA WOODS V. DICKINSON

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.

  • Hearing

MANN V. PUENTE

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.

  • Hearing

SHARON V. PORTER

(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.

  • Hearing

MATSUMOTO VS EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

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.

  • Hearing

LACY VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

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."

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SAFFIRE VS CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED

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.

  • Hearing

SAFFIRE VS CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED

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.

  • Hearing

JILLIAN MICHAELS, ET AL., VS GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, ET AL.,

For these reasons, the motion to tax costs is granted in part, and denied in part.

  • Hearing

IN THE MATTER OF GEORGE T MORRISON JR. REVOCABLE SURVIVORS TRUST

Paula Charron’s Motion to Tax Costs Originally Filed 08/01/19 – HEARING REQUIRED. Counsel to apprise of status of stipulation.

  • Hearing

VALERIE RAE CECHVALA VS. FCA US LLC

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MICHAEL CASTRO VS FOSS MARITIME COMPANY ET AL

“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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KEMPTON VS CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

"[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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ROBERT SCOTT SHTOFMAN VS JULIE C LIM ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DERRICK MARTIN VS JANA OSMOLINSKI

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

HAVLIK VS VAZQUEZ

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.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Candice Garcia-Rodrigo

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

ROSALIE SERRANO VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PETRA JACKSON VS PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ALAN ALEXANDER IRIGOYEN ET AL VS EXEL INC ET AL

Conclusion Moving Defendants’ motion to tax costs is granted. Moving Defendants to give notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ADRIANE WALKER-BAILEY V. NUGENT

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.”

  • Hearing

JULIO MARTINEZ VS ELIGIO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

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”).

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANA MEJIA VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

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.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 139     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.