Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER
Date: November 22,2019 Time: 8:30 AM
Judge: Michael W. Jones Dept: \
Reporter: }_Y/y¥0— — WIAD mcg ,
King, Anna P. vs.Hyundai Motor America VEC ElPresent 47>) Vv) => prere
yee 4 Present} ¢— DP Wwe ern.
[J And related Cross Action(s) Case # S-CV-0038637
Law and Motion Minutes
Proceedings RE: Motion: Tax Costs -
[-]Dropped. (J Continued to (] by PlaintiffL_] by Defendant
(_]by Stipulation [7]by Court
atterargued and submitted.
eee on points and authorities without [] argument [_]appearance.
(| Motion/Petition granted. [] Motion/Petition denied.
[_]Demurrer [1]sustained [] overruled [[]without [J with leave to [] amend [] answer.
["]Counsel! appointed for:
(1)Taken under submission.
[] Debtor issworn and retired with counsel forexamination.
(_]Stipulation to (Judge Pro Tem [_]Commissioner executed in open court.
(J Counsel for toprepare the written order and submit it toopposing counsel forapproval as
to—— and form. a
‘homer _) Noe woot Crete due 4 ee
DoS
Eth tentative ruling isadopted asthe ruling ofthe court, to& OS +0 os
rw
This tentative ruling is issued by the Honorable Michael W. Jones. If oral
———$$$—$__
argument is requested, it shall be heard at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3,
located at the Historic Courthouse in Auburn.
Motion to Tax and/or Strike Defendant’s Costs
LONE
( C
Plaintiff moves to tax or strike certain costs claimed by defendant
Hyundai Motor America in the memorandum of costs filed September 18, 2019.
“If 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.” Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Ass’n (1993) 19
Cal.App.4th 761, 774. When the reasonableness of particular items is
challenged, conclusory allegations do not satisfy the objecting party’s
burden. Id.; Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266.
Alternatively, where items are properly put in issue by objection, the burden
of proof is on the party claiming the costs. Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Ass’n,
supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 774-776.
Plaintiff challenges deposition transcribing costs of $3,602.80,
deposition travel costs of $997, and service of process costs of $725.20.
With respect to these items, which are expressly permitted pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(3) and (4), the motion is denied as
Plaintiff fails to satisfy her burden of showing that the costs were not
reasonable or necessary.
Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to expert witness fees in the amount of
$8,563.54. Defendant seeks these fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 998, as plaintiff failed to obtain a more favorable judgment than
defendant’s 998 offer dated May 26, 2017. Accordingly, the court has
discretion to award a reasonable sum to cover the services of expert
witnesses. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1). The court has reviewed the invoices
submitted by defendant in support of the requested fees, and finds them to be
( (
reasonable in amount. Plaintiff fails to establish that it was unreasonable
for defendant to retain an outside automotive expert, as opposed to
designating one of its own employees as an expert in the case.
With respect to costs for models, enlargements and photocopies of
exhibits in the amount of $1,361.98, the motion is denied. Plaintiff fails
to satisfy her burden of showing that the costs were not reasonable or
necessary, and defendant provides adequate support for the costs.
With respect to court reporter fees requested in Item 11 in the amount
of $8,741.50, the motion is denied. Code of Civil Procedure section
1033.5(a) (11) allows “[c]lourt reporter fees as established by statute.”
Government Code section 68086(c) provides that the costs for services of an
official court reporter in a civil action are recoverable as taxable costs by
the prevailing party. Defendant provides adequate support for the
reasonableness and necessity of these costs.
With respect to ACE service fees, telephonic service fees, and court
reporter fees for certified copies of transcripts which were also ordered by
the court, the motion is denied. Defendant satisfies its burden of showing
that these costs were reasonable and necessary to the conduct of the
litigation.
Finally, plaintiff challenges travel expenses in the amount of $396.33
for Eric Sim, $974.73 for Zhanna Bulkina, $942.27 for Sandra Zielomski, and
$5,823.04 in the general category of “hotel/accommodations for trial”. In
opposition, defendant submits documentation to support the costs relating to
( (
Eric Sim, Zhanna Bulkina, and Sandra Zielmoski. Based upon its review of
that documentation, the court taxes meal expenses in the total amount of
$180.57. See Ladas v. California Auto Ass’n (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774-
775. The court also taxes two charges identified in Ms. Bulkina’s expense
report for FedEx in the amounts of $565.07 and $38.19, as defendant fails to
explain the propriety of these charges. Further, it appears that the charge
for $565.07 is duplicative of an item of costs requested for models,
enlargements and photocopies of exhibits.
The court notes that defendant has provided no documentation to support
its request for $5,823.04 for “hotel/accommodations for trial”. The
declaration of Soheyl Tahsildoost states in conclusory fashion that “these
expenses were reasonable and necessary to the litigation in this action” and
“were not used for even a single extra day more than they had to.”
(Tahsildoost decl., I 16.) As these costs have not been substantiated, the
motion is granted with respect to $5,923.04 for “hotel/accommodations for
trial”.
Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part, and denied in part, as set forth
above. Defendant is awarded costs in the amount of $31,254.46.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER Date: November 22,2019 Time: 8:30 AM Judge: Michael W. Jones Dept: \ Reporter: }_Y/y¥0— — WIAD mcg , King, Anna P. vs.Hyundai Motor America VEC ElPresent 47>) Vv) => prere yee 4 Present} ¢— DP Wwe ern. [J And related Cross Action(s) Case # S-CV-0038637 Law and Motion Minutes Proceedings RE: Motion: Tax Costs - [-]Dropped. (J Continued to (] by PlaintiffL_] by Defendant (_]by Stipulation [7]by Court atterargued and submitted. eee on points and authorities without [] argument [_]appearance. (| Motion/Petition granted. [] Motion/Petition denied. [_]Demurrer [1]sustained [] overruled [[]without [J with leave to [] amend [] answer. ["]Counsel! appointed for: (1)Taken under submission. [] Debtor issworn and retired with counsel forexamination. (_]Stipulation to (Judge Pro Tem [_]Commissioner executed in open court. (J Counsel for toprepare the written order and submit it toopposing counsel forapproval as to—— and form. a ‘homer _) Noe woot Crete due 4 ee DoS Eth tentative ruling isadopted asthe ruling ofthe court, to& OS +0 os rw This tentative ruling is issued by the Honorable Michael W. Jones. If oral ———$$$—$__ argument is requested, it shall be heard at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3, located at the Historic Courthouse in Auburn. Motion to Tax and/or Strike Defendant’s Costs LONE ( C Plaintiff moves to tax or strike certain costs claimed by defendant Hyundai Motor America in the memorandum of costs filed September 18, 2019. “If 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.” Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Ass’n (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774. When the reasonableness of particular items is challenged, conclusory allegations do not satisfy the objecting party’s burden. Id.; Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266. Alternatively, where items are properly put in issue by objection, the burden of proof is on the party claiming the costs. Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Ass’n, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 774-776. Plaintiff challenges deposition transcribing costs of $3,602.80, deposition travel costs of $997, and service of process costs of $725.20. With respect to these items, which are expressly permitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(3) and (4), the motion is denied as Plaintiff fails to satisfy her burden of showing that the costs were not reasonable or necessary. Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to expert witness fees in the amount of $8,563.54. Defendant seeks these fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998, as plaintiff failed to obtain a more favorable judgment than defendant’s 998 offer dated May 26, 2017. Accordingly, the court has discretion to award a reasonable sum to cover the services of expert witnesses. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1). The court has reviewed the invoices submitted by defendant in support of the requested fees, and finds them to be ( ( reasonable in amount. Plaintiff fails to establish that it was unreasonable for defendant to retain an outside automotive expert, as opposed to designating one of its own employees as an expert in the case. With respect to costs for models, enlargements and photocopies of exhibits in the amount of $1,361.98, the motion is denied. Plaintiff fails to satisfy her burden of showing that the costs were not reasonable or necessary, and defendant provides adequate support for the costs. With respect to court reporter fees requested in Item 11 in the amount of $8,741.50, the motion is denied. Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a) (11) allows “[c]lourt reporter fees as established by statute.” Government Code section 68086(c) provides that the costs for services of an official court reporter in a civil action are recoverable as taxable costs by the prevailing party. Defendant provides adequate support for the reasonableness and necessity of these costs. With respect to ACE service fees, telephonic service fees, and court reporter fees for certified copies of transcripts which were also ordered by the court, the motion is denied. Defendant satisfies its burden of showing that these costs were reasonable and necessary to the conduct of the litigation. Finally, plaintiff challenges travel expenses in the amount of $396.33 for Eric Sim, $974.73 for Zhanna Bulkina, $942.27 for Sandra Zielomski, and $5,823.04 in the general category of “hotel/accommodations for trial”. In opposition, defendant submits documentation to support the costs relating to ( ( Eric Sim, Zhanna Bulkina, and Sandra Zielmoski. Based upon its review of that documentation, the court taxes meal expenses in the total amount of $180.57. See Ladas v. California Auto Ass’n (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774- 775. The court also taxes two charges identified in Ms. Bulkina’s expense report for FedEx in the amounts of $565.07 and $38.19, as defendant fails to explain the propriety of these charges. Further, it appears that the charge for $565.07 is duplicative of an item of costs requested for models, enlargements and photocopies of exhibits. The court notes that defendant has provided no documentation to support its request for $5,823.04 for “hotel/accommodations for trial”. The declaration of Soheyl Tahsildoost states in conclusory fashion that “these expenses were reasonable and necessary to the litigation in this action” and “were not used for even a single extra day more than they had to.” (Tahsildoost decl., I 16.) As these costs have not been substantiated, the motion is granted with respect to $5,923.04 for “hotel/accommodations for trial”. Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part, and denied in part, as set forth above. Defendant is awarded costs in the amount of $31,254.46.