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