On 08/17/2015 CHANGO COFFEE INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against APPLIED UNDERWRITERS INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB and RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB
RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK
CHANGO COFFEE INC.
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS INC
TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS M HALL
HALL THOMAS MONTAGUE
FINE BOGGS & PERKINS LLP
KING CORY JAMES
1/30/2018: FINAL RULING
4/5/2018: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ISSUE EVIDENCE AND MONETARY SACTIONS; DECLARATION OF THOMAS M. HALL
5/30/2018: DECLARATION OF CORY J. KING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF DEFENDANT APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN TILE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
5/30/2018: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
8/1/2018: DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ISSUE, EVIDENCE AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
8/10/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF JEFFREY SILVER RE: OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
2/19/2019: Separate Statement
5/2/2019: Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed
6/3/2019: Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal
8/17/2015: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF VIOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT?S FIRST ET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION; AND FOR SANCTIONS
8/17/2015: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC. FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ? 128.7
8/17/2015: Minute Order
8/17/2015: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT?S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION; AND FOR SANCTIONS
8/17/2015: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF RENEWAL OF (1) MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE/DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AND (2) PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
8/17/2015: PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
9/15/2015: SEPARATE STATEMENT OF REQUESTS, RESPONSES AND REASONS TO ORDER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS [C.R.C. #3.1345]
11/4/2015: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
12/4/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL
Clerk's Notice of Non-Compliance of Default on Appeal; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Motion to Tax Costs; Filed by Chango Coffee, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Chango Coffee, Inc. (Appellant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice (of Entry of Judgment or Order); Filed by Applied Underwriters Inc (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (Amended "U" NOA 05/02/19); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Memorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by Applied Underwriters Inc (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Cory James King (Attorney)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Default; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (Re Entry of Judgment) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Judgment By Court Under Code Civil Procedure section 437c; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS RENEWAL OF ITS ALTERNATIVE PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO CCP 1008(B)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION; AND FOR SANCTIONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof of ServiceRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS RENEWAL OF MOTION TO CHKNGE VENUE/DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CCP 1008(B)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-CONTRACTRead MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATIONRead MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC. FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 128.7Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC591586 Hearing Date: November 14, 2019 Dept: 47
Chango Coffee, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc.
MOTION TO TAX COSTS
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Chango Coffee, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Applied Underwriters, Inc.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiff alleged that Defendant payroll processing service made unauthorized withdrawals from Plaintiff’s checking account for purposes not related to the contract between the parties. The Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in its favor.
Plaintiff moves to tax costs.
Plaintiff Chango Coffee, Inc.’s motion to tax costs is DENIED in its entirety.
Defendant’s Objections To Plaintiff’s Reply
No. 1: Overruled. Defendant is correct that Plaintiff’s reply was untimely, having not been filed five court days before the hearing date. (CCP § 1005(b).) The Court could therefore disregard it, but the Court exercises its discretion to consider it. Even considering the reply, however, it is largely unresponsive to Defendant’s opposition.
No. 2: Sustained. Defendant is also correct that the Declaration of Thomas M. Hill does not recite that it is made “under penalty of perjury” or otherwise meet the statutory requirements for a declaration. (CCP § 2015.5.) Accordingly, it will be disregarded in its entirety.
Nos. 3, 5: Denied as Moot. These objections are moot in light of the Court’s decision on No. 2.
No. 4: Sustained. Exhibit 1 to the Hill Declaration is irrelevant to this motion.
Under the California Rules of Court, a motion to 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.” (CRC 3.1700(b)(2).) This procedure “provides an orderly and efficient way of placing disputed costs at issue on a line item basis.” (612 South LLC v. Laconic Limited Partnership (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1285.) Plaintiff did not comply with this requirement. On a motion to tax costs, “the verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary.” (Ibid.) By failing to comply with the rule governing motions to tax costs and therefore failing to show that particular numbered items in the memorandum of costs were not reasonable or necessary, Plaintiff has failed to meet that burden.
Even if the Court were willing to overlook this procedural deficiency, Plaintiff would not have met its burden to show that the contested costs were unreasonable or unnecessary.
Item No. 1 (Filing and Motion Fees).
Plaintiff appears to move to tax these costs in the amount of $600.00 ($240 + $60 + $240 + $60) of Defendant’s total filing and motion fees of $1590.00, on the ground that they represent filing fees for motions that were contradicted by the evidence and conflicted with Nebraska law ($240), were filed and subsequently abandoned ($240), or represented fees for an unsuccessful motion for sanctions ($60) and an unsuccessful motion to reclassify the case to limited civil ($60).
Defendant listed the documents filed and their individual filing fees in its Memorandum of Costs. (William D. Wheelock, Exh. 3.) Given that these fees appear proper on their face, the burden is on Plaintiff to show that they were unreasonable or unnecessary. (Ladas v. California State Auto Ass’n (1993) 19 Cal.4th 761, 774-776.) Plaintiff has not done so. The Declaration of William D. Wheelock also explains why these costs were reasonable and necessary. (Wheelock Decl. ¶¶ 5-9.)
Item No. 4 (Deposition Costs).
Plaintiff appears to move to tax $2,552.22 of Defendant’s deposition costs that total $4,490.77, representing the costs for a video deposition of Tad Yenawine, on the ground that this testimony was “subsequently criticized by both the trial Court and the Court of Appeal.” (Plaintiff’s Motion, at p. 2.)
The prevailing party is entitled to recover the costs of taking, video recording, and transcribing “necessary” depositions. (CCP § 1033.5(a)(3).) Here, Plaintiff argues that Yenawine’s deposition was unnecessary because this Court said that it did not “alter the court’s legal analysis” in connection with particular motions and because the Court of Appeal likewise criticized it for railing “extrinsic and dubious facts.” (Motion, at p. 7.)
Yenawine was, however, identified as Plaintiff’s PMK regarding the factual allegations of the complaint, and therefore Plaintiff has not met its burden to show that his deposition was unreasonable or unnecessary. Defendant might not have made use of the deposition in an effective way in connection with the motions and appeal cited by Plaintiff, but that does not render the deposition itself an unnecessary or unreasonable cost.
Item No. 11 (Court Reporter Fees).
Plaintiff appears to seek to tax all of Defendant’s court reporter fees totaling $800.00.
Costs for transcripts not ordered by the court are allowable only when expressly authorized by law. (CCP § 1033.5(b)(5).) The challenged fees, however, were not for transcripts but for the reporters’ per diem. (Wheelock Decl. ¶¶ 16-18.) These costs are allowable. (Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 58 [noting that court reporter fees are an “entirely different expense” than transcripts and that they must be paid “regardless of whether anyone orders transcripts”].)
Item No. 16 (Other Costs).
Finally, Plaintiff appears to seek to tax Defendant’s “other” costs for messenger and attorney services. Plaintiff appears to object to particular items in Attachment 16, such as Item D and Item G, but Plaintiff also objects to the total amount for Item No. 16 ($1893.39).
Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s messenger fees are not allowed under CCP § 1033.5. This is incorrect. Even items that are not mentioned specifically in CCP § 1033.5 “may be allowed or denied in the court’s discretion.” (CCP § 1033.5(c)(4).) Moreover, as with many of Plaintiff’s arguments, this one ignores the fact that Defendant’s costs in a verified memorandum of costs that appear proper on their face are presumed reasonable. (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 774-776.) Defendant has also come forward with evidence that these costs were necessary and reasonable. (Wheelock Decl. ¶¶ 19-20.) The Court finds that these costs were reasonably necessary to the litigation.
The motion to tax costs is DENIED in its entirety.
Moving Party to give notice, unless waived.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 14, 2019 ___________________________________
Randolph M. Hammock
Judge of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org