arrow left
arrow right
  • King, Anna P. vs. Hyundai Motor Americacivil document preview
  • King, Anna P. vs. Hyundai Motor Americacivil document preview
  • King, Anna P. vs. Hyundai Motor Americacivil document preview
  • King, Anna P. vs. Hyundai Motor Americacivil document preview
  • King, Anna P. vs. Hyundai Motor Americacivil document preview
  • King, Anna P. vs. Hyundai Motor Americacivil document preview
  • King, Anna P. vs. Hyundai Motor Americacivil document preview
  • King, Anna P. vs. Hyundai Motor Americacivil document preview
						
                                

Preview

OR-SINAL KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP Steve Mikhov (SBN 224676) stevem@knightlaw.com Deepak Devabose (SBN 298890) FILED NRO deepakd@knightlaw.com Superior Court of C; lifornia WD 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 County of Planar Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-2250 DEC 27 2019 Re Fax: (310) 552-7973 Jake Chatters OO utive Officer g Clerk THE ALTMAN LAW GROUP : O. DRO Lucatuorto, Deputy Bryan Charles Altman (SBN 122976) 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 N Los Angeles, CA 90067 DOH Telephone: (310) 277-8481 Fax: (310) 277-8483 (Oo bryan@altmanlawgroup.com oO Attorneys for Plaintiff, = ANNA P. KING =) — SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA =) HBO COUNTY OF PLACER fa | W ANNA P. KING, Case No.: SCV0038637 =< ee FSF . PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO a nO Plaintiff, fF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRI AND/OR TAX PLAINTIFF’S COSTS DB vs. | NQ [Filed Concurrently with Declaration of Steve | HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a Mikhov in Support of Plaintiffs Opposition; FH | California Corporation; and DOES 1 Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of through 10, inclusive, Soheyl Tahsildoost] ODO -— FD HN Defendant Date: January 10, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. |& HM Dept.: 31 NY ND Ww WN FF YD on NY Dn NO NO on NY PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX PLAINTIFF’S COSTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) coolOOClUlUOwWOOUN NO INTRODUCTION occ eeeeeeeeeeeeseeseeseesesseesesessesaecsecseeeaeeaecseeeaeeseseseaeeaeeaeseeeaseaeeaeeneeas 1 Il. ARGUMENT 1.0...ccecceseesesseseeseeseesescesecsecaeeseeseesecsecaeeaeesecsaeaceseesesaceaeeaeesecseeseeseeeseasaes 2 Oa A. Pre-Judgment Interest and Pending Attorney’s Fees and Costs Must be Added to the Verdict for § 998 Comparison Purposes ............scsssssssssessesssenseess 2 De B. Pisintift's Memorandum. of Costs Was) TiMOly swssiscccenssscecasssessaxececesoreavesnezens 3 C. The Law Addressing Motions to Tax Costs Places the Burden on Defendant to Properly Challenge Costs Sought by Plaintiff as Prevailing PARE eccneese tn shinsan dtsanncitonenndtsndasanrenensnennnennsensvanerenersenceunoreesersearnanennsnessrsemsansveuerd * D. Recovery of Costs and Expenses isExtended by the Song-Beverly Act .......... 5 EB. Response to Specific Line Items Contested by Defendant...... .......ccceeceeeeee: 7 ee 1) Item 1: Filing Fees wc eseseeseeeeseeeesecseceeseeseeaeeecsecseeseseeeeeseeaesecseens 7 ee = PO ee 2) Ttem 2: JUry Fees... eccecesscsseesseeseecseeeeceseecseeesecesesaeeeseseseeseeeasesseess 7 W 3) Meer: ip Dee rece ecrcmmereereosseceencnvenenxccmumaneumusrmunnwesnn 7 wee Fe 4) Itent 5) Servic@orl Process COStS cscs scsi snsscncnconnssmsamawereaencnneme 5) Jtemi 8: WitteSS P6ES ssssccscssscessscssvsacavssevensesestsiseasitsesecevecoctecseseeceecocenenoee 9 DBO ee a) Ordinary Witness Fees. ........ccs csssssccssessesseseeseeseeceseeseeseeseseeseeeesseaees 9 me b) Expert Witness Fees......... ccceceesessessesseseeeeseeseeseseseeseeseseesecseeaeseeaees 9 HN ee 6) Item 11: Models, Blowups, and Photocopies of Exhibits.........0....0..10 OD 7) Item 12: Court Reporter Fees... eeeeeesseeseeseeeseeseeseeeeeeeeeseeseeeeneeseeaes 1] DTD CN 8) Item 13: Other Costs ......cccccccccsccessceesscceseceesccessecesseceesseeesesesseeeseesseees 11 F|F& KN a) Attorney Services and Messengers For Court Filings......... .........11 Nn KN b) Overnight Courier. ........cccecsecsseesseeeeceseceeeceeeeeceseeeseeneeeeseeeeeseeanes 12 WY KN C) “Court Call? occ ccccscccsccssscesssecssseeessecesseecsseceseceeseeessesesseeeseeensees 12 fF YN C) Transcripts......... ccceccccscessesseesscesseeeseceseceseeeseceseeesecseeeeeeaeeeseeeeeeaeees 12 Ur NY €) Travel Expenses. ........ccccccecssccssecesssecesseceseeceseeeeseeeeseceeeeseeeeeeeeseaeeeaas 13 Dn NH f) Appearance Attorney Fees......... cceeeeeseeseeeseceeeeneeeseceeeeseesseeseenees 13 ANY NO g) Copies, Legal Research and Trial Supplies...... 0.0... eeeeeeeeseeeeee 14 NON mH ii PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX PLAINTIFF’S COSTS F. Plaintiff is Entitled to Recover Attorney Fees Incurred for this OOS TOD oscsccen se comenexssanauemeosienseneexnunesmnecanercamsmssnaranimenemawssanne tein tasesuen easaxeaeRR CocCoclUlCOUlUlUOmOWWUN ND TET, «> CONCLUSION sexeesarssunnacansarnnsrumusin 15.50 0h05 5 0608 tasbashii sikh thbavonensonsmsonessonensensnansonnenensenevonss COD i Oa meee BP WH WH HPO —& mm DBNN mm DO OH RO NO KF NNO NY BW NO FF NO NO Dn NH NI NO Oo NO iil PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX PLAINTIFF’S COSTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) YO Cases WD Arntz Contracting Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 464 ooo cesecseseescseeseeeseeseseesecsessesaeeaeeaeseesecseeseeaeeeeaeeaeeaeeesaeeaees 6 ee HN Big Bear Properties, Inc. v.Gherman (1979) 95 Cal. App.3d 908 oe eeescesesseeeesecsecseeseeseesecsecseesecseeaeeseesecsecaeeaeeseeseeseeseeaeeneenes 2 DD Bodell Construction Company v. Trustees of California State University N (1998) 238 Cal.App.4th 1508 cc cccessseesseseeseseesessessesecsecsecseesessesecsecseeaesecsecsecseseeaeeaees 3 mH Boehm & Associates v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bad. Oo (1999) 76 Cal Appt 513 wisicccscsssnssancassesesessacesarsonecsnsnsserssasnensenenssoranssserenteronseversnenvarssenens 3 oC ee Bussey v.Affleck (1986) 477 US. 56] sscsssssnsssisnsossarsdsrceccornnsnencaneeneasensnennsusenneessaysersveunreeeavvorenventensnsenssansyses 6, 10 me —& Chesapeake Industries, Inc. v. Togova Enterprises, Inc NYO (1983) 149 CaLApp.3d 901 sssstsssssssasssssssssocatsennnssneasncensnenssncenavererseceeseseevsrearstevesveniaeserserenees 3 Oem WO me Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. Fe (2000) 23 Cal. App.4" 163 ...cccccsccssessessesssessessessessucssessesscsussussessesuesuesscarsatssesassassevsucsuesseeneenee 3 Wn Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. DB (2009) 174 Call App.4th 1004 occ cceesesessssesesesesseseescssesesesscseescseessseecsessessseeacscseeseacsesaes 3 NIN En Palm, LLC. v.Teitler (2008) 162 Cal.App.4' 770 w.ccescsssessessesssessessessucsussussussecsessessesucsscsussussesaesaessesresaeeneenease 8, 10 ODO OH Foothill-De Anza Community College Dist. v. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal. App.4th U1 oo ccceceeesesesesseseseseseseseeseseseseseeseseseeecassesessacscscsceeeeeacseseaees 11 TD Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. —|& NNO (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553 oo. cccscscsessssessseseescseeeescseeeeseneeseeeeseeeeseseesesessesecsesesseeeeaeseeasseseeass 14 NY KN Hayward vy.Ventura Volvo (2003) 180 Cal. App.4th 509 oo cceescseeseeeseseseesesesessesesseseeseseesesecsesecassecseeecsssecseseeeeseaes 14 KN WF&F NO Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677 .occecececcesssessesseseseeseeeseeseesesecseesecseeseeseesesassassecsesassecsecaceaeateases 4 oO NO Hsu v. Semiconductor Systems, Inc., Dn NO (2003) 126 Cal App Ath 1330 scssescesenscesssnensancanssasmnwsnnssowueestaasn tics ss sate sacuuiaheditiindipndnasiasdasbbesonen 8 AI NO Jay v.Mahaffey oa NO (2013) 218 Cal App Ath 1522 sscscseseamsansecoueaeseaxavcansexanenssvnmseecemsmmuanecscseaumverenencevecnnneners 3 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX PLAINTIFF’S COSTS — Jensen v.BMW ofNorth America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 112 occ ceceeseeseeesecsecsecseeeseeseeecesesseeseceeceaeeseseeeeseeseeseeeees passim NO Ladas v.California State Auto. Ass'n (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761 oo. ececcccsccsecsecseeseesececseceeeeseesececeseeseceesseeseesseeeeeseeseeneeas 4,11 WY Fe Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal. App.4th 644 ooo ccecccessesesesseseesssecseesesseeeesecsesseeecsecsessecseeaesessecseeeesesaeersseeaes 2 On Leaf v.Phil Rauch, Inc. Dn C1973) 4ST CALAP OSG ST] sesaresssnawsasssrssaxnennsavnennssxansne cccwanunnnnsasnwecissnwerstmesnsskssnvth 0htacit. taited 2 NIN Molski v.Arcelero Wine Group me (2008) 164 Cal. App.4'" 786 ...cccccccccsessessessssssscsecsecsessescssesscsesscsesscsvcsesscsvcatsueseaesneaveasease 8, 10 0 Murillo v.Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. OP) 0G ANT BD ee conan sourrenmroncsnasarea tecsemceespemtesconsnatenasteamemansatneststts tassedead 6 OC meet North Oakland Medical Clinic v.Rogers S| (P2998) G5 Cal APO At, BAF scccecesmsesuncu es anusswaisuawensicansuaatsesmscnesaanar. sks fe dthihte¥aitinsicinbannnditsonennasauen 3 me VY Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co. Ww me (1963) 217 Cal. App.2d 678 oo.ccicccecsssesssseseseteesesenseseesesesseseescseecseacsesecaesecseseeaesteacseeeeacas 4 F&F me Reveles v. Toyota by the Bay (1997) 57 Cal. App.4th 1139 occ ccceseseesessescsessessesscsscsecsecsecseeacsecsecseeacsassessecseeecseeaceeees 14 DH Ripley v. Pappadopoulos (1994) 23 Cal. App.4th 1616 oo. cccsesesseseseeseesesscececsesseeseesssecsecseesesesseeseescaeens 6, 10, 14 HN ww Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal. App.3d 621 ..eeccccsscsesseseseeseseeseseeseesesscssesseecseesecsesacsecaecsesessecsecseeatsasseeaees 14 ODO State v. Meyer FSD HNO (1985) Cal. App.3d 1061 oo.eccececsesseesessesseseeecsessesecsecsecseesecsecsesecsecseeaeacsecsesseeseeasseeaeeatenes 4 -|- NO Warne v. Harkness NY Oy OO a I ees acesceiperencoemres careers cscs emceeecenirenostsaneaeranccneemercenecemmenmaneceran 5 KN Ww NO Wilson v. Nichols (1942) 55 Cal. App.2d 678 oo.ccceceeseesesesecssesceesesecseeseesecseecsecsecsecsesseceesecseeseeeeseeseeaeeaeseaees 4 FF NO HA NO Dn NO ry NO Oo NO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX PLAINTIFF’S COSTS Statutes and Codes WN California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7 oc ececccsssssscscsescscscscscscsvsvavevsvavasasssssstvavavssasvavassssevasavssvesessvasseevacececsesesecececeses 4 W California Code of Civil Procedure fe Section LOS...ccccesccscssesessescsscscsevscsevsvssavsesassessesasssssessevssssssassassavsevsevastecsecsececsesecsecseees 12 DO California Code of Civil Procedure Section LOB cc cccccsccscssescsscscsscscsevsvsesevsescsesacsevaesessesssssevasssssassassevsevactastecsecsectecsssecseceeees 12 NY California Code of Civil Procedure Fe Section 1032 w..ccecccsccccsscssssscsccscsscssssessecsecsesecsecsscsessesssessecssecsecsacescsssseacueceaceeceees 1,4, 5, 14 So California Civil Code 10 Section 1794 (C) .ccecccsesssssssssssscscscscscscsescscsescscscscscsssesevavavatsesavsssssavasasassavavasssssvavatsssevevavaceees 1 11 California Civil Code Section 1794 (d) ..c.ceeecesceseesesessesesesesesessesesecsesesesucscscscsesssscscsvavscsvsvsusesacavacavaensacaans passim 12 California Civil Code 13 Section 3287 ....ceccsccssesscsscssesscsecsesscsecsecseescsacsecsecsecsecsessassasesscsassasesecsesssessscsscuscusevaceeceecees 2,3 14 California Civil Code 15 Section 3298... .ecccccccccsssesscsscssccsecsscesecsecsecaesssessecsecsasessesssessecsasesseesseesssessessessusesecesseuscensees 2 16 California Rules of Court 17 Section 3.1 700......cccccccccesscesscessccsccsccsscessccesscesscessccassesesessesessececseseesssesssscsseceseceseceuseensace 4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vi PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX PLAINTIFF’S COSTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES LO I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff WD Anna P. King’s successful litigation of this matter resulted in a jury verdict in her Re favor. Yet, Hyundai Motor America (“Defendant” or “HMA”) presents a disingenuous attempt to utilize California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 998 to cut all costs and expenses incurred by DRDO Plaintiff after May 26, 2017, the date of HMA’s CCP § 998 Second Offer (“Second 998 Offer’). HMA intentionally ignores the fact that prejudgment interest and yet to be determined attorney’s ON fees and costs must be added to the verdict for § 998 comparison purposes, especially since (Oo Plaintiffrequested said amounts from the outset of litigation and the ultimate verdict contemplated oO awarding these amounts by post-verdict motions. At trial, Plaintiff prevailed on her claims for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer — meee VHB Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”), e.g. Civil Code § 1794(c). As expressly stated in its Notice of Motion, HMA WY moves this Court based on California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §§ 998, Fe 1032, 1033 and 1033.5. (see Notice of Motion, page 1, lines 26-28.). HMA is an experienced litigant inthis area of law and knows quite well that CCP § 1033.5 isnot the operative statute that Dn applies here. The Song-Beverly Act has itsown statutory authorization for the prevailing party to NY recover not just costs, but also “expenses.” As the controlling case law cited below indicates, the FHF inclusion of the term “expenses” is intended to broaden the scope of recoverable litigation OD expenditures. The question isnot simply whether cost items appear inthe listof recoverable costs 9D RO set forth under CCP § 1033.5, but whether the costs were reasonably incurred “in the ROD commencement and prosecution of such action.” F|- Since HMA has failed to move on applicable legal grounds, HMA’s Motion to Tax Costs must be NY —O denied. It is procedurally flawed and bereft of relevant legal analysis. Ifthe Court should consider NO Ww F&F HMA’s moving papers despite itsnotice to Plaintiffon irrelevant grounds, Plaintiffpoints out thatHMA KN Un NY has turned the analysis upside down. A verified memorandum of costs isprima facie evidence Dn concerning the necessity and reasonableness of costs and expenses incurred. Defendant has failed to NO make a single legitimate objection to rebut the prima facie evidence, reverting in each instance to NI NO Oo analysis of CCP § 1033.5 and its progeny of case law. Plaintiff'scounsel nevertheless submits an internal NO 1 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX PLAINTIFF’S COSTS spreadsheet and supporting invoices in the interestsof fulltransparency. The spreadsheet provides a line- oColUOlUlUlUCUOONODN by-line itemization of the expenditures to which HMA has objection. (Declaration of Steve Mikhov i ROBO ((“SM Dec.”) § 4, Ex. A.) The burden is on HMA to properly object to the expenditures with evidence and analysis, not simply make conclusory objections thatcertain items were unreasonably incurred. II. ARGUMENT A. Pre-Judgment Interest and Pending Attorney’s Fees and Costs Must be Added to the Verdict for § 998 Comparison Purposes Plaintiff seeks prejudgment interest under California Code of Civil Procedure § 3287(a). Prejudgment interest has been found to be available in vehicle cases for violation of warranty for over forty (40) years in case aftercase. "Every person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in him upon a particular day, isentitled also to recover interest thereon from that day... — ."(Civil Code § meee NO 3287(a).) The legal rate of prejudgment interest on claims arising from the breach of written Ww agreement is ten percent. (Civil Code § 3298(b).) — "Under this provision, prejudgment interest isallowable where the amount due plaintiff is fixed by the terms of the contract, or isreadily ascertainable by reference to the well-established DN market values." (Leafv. Phil Rauch, Inc. (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 371, 375.) In Leaf the Court of NY Appeal held that ina claim to recover the purchase price of an automobile based upon the failure FH to repair certain defects under a written warranty, damages were "certain" because the amount of OD damages (i.e.,the value of the vehicle) Rm could be determined by looking at the purchase contract ODO —RO and calculating the damage therefrom. (/d.at 376.) The Court of Appeal concluded "since the F|-& RO requirement of Civil Code § 3287 regarding certainty of damage was met, plaintiffs were entitled, NO Nn as a matter of right, to recover prejudgment interest on the sum awarded from the time such sum NO WB became due." (/d.) NHN Ff Prejudgment interest isawarded to compensate a party for the loss of use of property and is Un NY properly awarded in both tort and contract actions. Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries, 6 Dn NO Cal.App.4th 644, 663 (1993); Big Bear Properties, Inc. v. Gherman (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 908, 914; NO A see, Civil Code § 3287(a). A plaintiffwho isentitled to recover "damages certain or capable of being Oo NO made certain by calculation" isalso entitledto interest from the time the rightto recovery arises. (Civil 2 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX PLAINTIFF’S COSTS Code § 3287(a); see, Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co., 23 Cal.App.4" 163, 174-175 (2000). "[T]he court has no discretion, but must award prejudgment interestupon request, from the WN firstday there exists both a breach and a liquidated claim." North Oakland Medical Clinic WwW v.Rogers, 65 Cal.App.4th 824, 828 (1998). Prejudgment interest may be awarded under Civil Code § 3287 - even if it isnot specifically authorized by the statute underlying the plaintiff's claims. See, e.g, NN ND Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., 174 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1009-1011 (2009) (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act does not bar recovery of prejudgment interest). In general, courts apply eH a liberal construction in determining whether a claim iscertain or "liquidated." Chesapeake So Industries, Inc. v. Togova Enterprises, Inc., 149 Cal.App.3d 901, 907 10 (1983). The test for determining certainty under § 3287(a) is whether the defendant knew the 11 amount of damages owed to the plaintiff or could have computed the amount from reasonably 12 available information. (/d.)"A dispute concerning liability does not preclude prejudgment interest 13 in a civilaction." Boehm & Associates v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 513, 14 517.) Specifically, HMA’s Second 998 Offer - which was calculated down to cents — 15 demonstrates that HMA knew or could reasonably calculate Plaintiff's compensatory damage 16 request to the jury at trial.Accordingly, in order for the Court to fairly assess whether Plaintiff 17 beat HMA’s Second 998 Offer, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs must be 18 added to the verdict to determine if itwas beaten. (Bodell Construction Company v. Trustees of 19 California State University (1998) 238 Cal.App.4" 1508, 1526.) Defendant bears the burden it 20 cannot meet to show itsoffer was more than the amount recovered. 21 B. Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs was Timely Filed 22 HMA claims that Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs was untimely and should be stricken 23 in its entirety. HMA erroneously claims that Judgment was entered on September 6, 2019. 24 Defendant has failed to present any evidence or support for HMA’s claim.! In fact, the notice of 25 entry ofjudgment was filed on November 6, 2019. Plaintiff has 15 days after the date of service 26 27 'HMA may notattempt tocure thisfatalflawwith new arguments or evidence initsreply papers.Itiswell- establishedthatnew evidence ornew arguments may notbe raisedforthe first time ina Reply sincetheopposing party 28 has no opportunitytorespond. (SeeJay v.Mahaffey (2013)218 Cal. App.4th 1522, 1537 [The generalrule ofmotion practiceis that new evidence isnotpermittedwith replypapers.].) 3 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR TAX PLAINTIFF’S COSTS of the notice of entry of judgment to file the Memorandum of Costs. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1700(a)(1).) Plaintiff filed the Memorandum of Costs on November 21, 2019. Therefore, UOmOCUN Oa Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs was timely filed. C. The Law Addressing Motions to Tax Costs Places the Burden on Defendant to Properly Challenge Costs Sought by Plaintiff as Prevailing Party De Plaintiff is the prevailing party and is,therefore, entitled to recover her costs and expenses. CoCClUOUlUl (Code Civ. Proc. § 1032; Civ. Code §§ 1794(d).) To this end, a verified memorandum of costs generally satisfies the moving party’s burden of establishing that costs were necessarily incurred. (Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.) Once this fact is established, as done by Plaintiff here, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to show that the costs were unnecessary. (/bid.) Ifthe items appear to be proper charges, the verified memorandum isprima 11 facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred (Oak 12 Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 698), and the burden of 13 showing that an item isnot properly chargeable or is unreasonable isupon the party challenging 14 the costs. (Wilson yv. Nichols (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 678, 682-683.) Conclusory and 15 unsubstantiated objections to a claim for costs are inadequate to rebut the presumption that the 16 claim