This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:09:49 (UTC).

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS LIVING REBOS, LLC ETAL

Case Summary

On 08/29/2017 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against LIVING REBOS, LLC ETAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MICHAEL P. LINFIELD. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4091

  • Filing Date:

    08/29/2017

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MICHAEL P. LINFIELD

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Appellant

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EX REL.

Defendants and Respondents

LIVING REBOS LLC

AVEE LABORATORIES INC.

H&H TESTING

ABBOTT LABORATORIES

UB LABORATORIES INC.

REMIEN ROSS

ZEN RECOVERY LLC

MOTANO CARLOS

ESTATE OF AUSTIN ELGUINDY

ALERE TOXICOLOGY SERVICES INC.

GENESIS MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS LLC

M-BRACE TREATMENT INC.

UPFRONT LABS LLC

GLOBAL ANALYTICAL DEVELOPMENT LLC

VAN DYKE GREGORY

GLORIOSA MANAGEMENT LLC

UPFRONT A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

CORDOVA MEDICAL & DIAGNOSTIC GROUP INC.

SOBERTEC LLC

28 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MEDVEI SEBASTIAN M.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

WELSH ROBERT C. ESQ.

HARDIMAN MARK S.

FELSENTHAL DAVID B.

RADKE JONATHAN

MOLNAR CHRISTIAN S. ESQ.

KRON SCOTT A.

ELIZABETH SIERRA

MATTHIAS MICHAEL R.

CONWAY SARAH G.

WELSH ROBERT CRAIG ESQ.

BUCK JONATHAN ESQ.

PHAN ROBERT N.

Other Attorneys

MEDVEI SEBASTIAN M. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

3/28/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

DEFENDANT AVEE LABORATORIES, INC.'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

5/1/2018: DEFENDANT AVEE LABORATORIES, INC.'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT M-BRACE TREATMENT CENTER, INC.'S ANSWER TO RELATOR'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6/11/2018: DEFENDANT M-BRACE TREATMENT CENTER, INC.'S ANSWER TO RELATOR'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Notice

11/2/2018: Notice

Declaration

11/14/2018: Declaration

Motion for Summary Judgment

12/3/2018: Motion for Summary Judgment

Motion re:

12/21/2018: Motion re:

Opposition

12/31/2018: Opposition

Ex Parte Application

1/2/2019: Ex Parte Application

Declaration

1/14/2019: Declaration

Declaration

1/14/2019: Declaration

Objection

1/14/2019: Objection

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

2/15/2019: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Proof of Service

1/26/2018: Proof of Service

CIVIL DEPOSIT

1/26/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF SIERRA ELIZABETH

1/26/2018: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF SIERRA ELIZABETH

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

1/10/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/12/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

276 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/02/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 34 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 34 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 34 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 34 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2019
  • DocketAppeal Record Delivered; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • DocketAppeal - Notice Court Reporter to Prepare Appeal Transcript; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • DocketNotice ( of Continued Case Management Conference); Filed by Genesis Molecular Diagnostics, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • DocketNotice ( OF RESCHEDULING MOTION OF PLAINTIFF TO TAX COSTS CLAIMED BY DEFENDANTS UPFRONT LABS, LLC AND SOBERTEC, LLC); Filed by People of the State of California ex rel. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Default Issued (NOA..02/14/19); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
478 More Docket Entries
  • 12/04/2017
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Commissioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Ex-Parte Proceedings (Exparte proceeding; Court makes order) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • DocketOrder; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • DocketEx-Parte Application; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • DocketORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER PERMITTING FILING OF COMPLAINT IN CAMERA UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO INSURANCE CODE SECTION 1871.7(E)(2); DECLARATION OF SEBASTIAN M. MEDVEI IN SUPPORT FILED IN CAMERA AND UNDER SEAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • DocketEX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER PERMITTING FILING OF COMPLAINT IN CAMERA UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO INSURANCE CODE SECTION 1871.7(E)(2); DECLARATION OF SEBASTIAN M. MEDVEI IN SUPPORT FILED IN CAMERA AND UNDER SEAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE INSURANCE FRAUD PREVENTION ACT FILED IN CAMERA AND UNDER SEAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-08-29 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by People of the State of California ex rel. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC674091    Hearing Date: December 02, 2019    Dept: 34

SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Tax Costs

Moving Party: Plaintiff People of the State of California ex rel. Alison Tonti

Resp. Party: Defendants Sobertec, LLC and Upfront Labs, LLC

(2) Motion to Tax Costs

Moving Party: Plaintiff People of the State of California ex rel. Alison Tonti

Resp. Party: Defendant Avee Laboratories, Inc. and Alere Non-Parties

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion to tax the costs of Defendants Sobertec, LLC and Upfront Labs, LLC is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motion to tax the costs of Defendant Avee Laboratories, Inc. is GRANTED in part. The Court taxes the amount of costs sought by Defendant Avee by $4,839.15.

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff People of the State of California ex rel. Alison Tonti (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action on August 29, 2017. On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Living Rebos, LLC; H&H Testing, Inc.; Avee Laboratories, Inc.; M-Brace Treatment, Inc.; Sobertec, LLC; Millennium Health, LLC; Upfront Labs, LLC; Gloriosa Management, LLC; Gregory Van Dyke; UB Laboratories, Inc.; Cordova Medical Group, Inc.; Genesis Molecular Diagnostics, LLC; and Zen Recovery, LLC for violation of the California Insurance Frauds Prevention Action (“CIFPA”). The amended complaint contains allegations against 100 unidentified Doe defendants. (Am. Compl. ¶ 18.)

On January 3, 2019 and January 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed requests to amend her amended complaint by substituting Alere, Inc., Alere Toxicology Services, Inc., Global Analytical Development, LLC, and Abbott Laboratories (collectively, “Alere Defendants”) for Doe Defendants 5-8.

On January 25, 2018, the Court granted Defendant Avee Laboratories, Inc.’s (“Avee”) motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff presented no evidence to establish that Avee violated the CIFPA.

On January 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of the entire action with prejudice.

On February 4, 2019, the Court granted Avee’s motion to deny requests to amend.

On February 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment in this matter and all orders that are separately appealable, including but not limited to the dismissal entered on January 29, 2019, Austin v. Valverde (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 546, 550-551, and all prior appealable orders, as well as the subsequent order granting the motion to quash entered on February 4, 2019.

On February 15, 2019, Sobertec, LLC and Upfront Labs, LLC filed their memorandum of costs.

On February 19, 2019, Avee filed its memorandum of costs.

On March 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to tax costs claimed by Avee, Sobertec, LLC, and Upfront Labs, LLC.

Plaintiff requests that Sobertec, LLC and Upfront Labs, LLC’s memorandum of costs be stricken in its entirety, or in the alternative, that the costs claimed be taxed to reflect the costs actually incurred and substantiated by the Defendants, which is, at best, $870.00. (Sobertec & Upfront Labs Motion, p. 2:6-8.)

Plaintiff requests that Avee’s memorandum of costs be stricken in its entirety or, in the alternative, that the costs claimed be taxed to reflect the costs actually incurred and substantiated by the Defendants, which is, at best, $1,079.43. (Avee Motion, p. 2:6-8.)

ANALYSIS:

A. Relevant Law

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032(b).)

After judgment is entered, the prevailing party “who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a).) “The memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in this case.” (Id.)

In turn, the losing party may file a motion to strike or tax costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b).) Procedurally, “[a]ny notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum.” (Id.)

Even where parties are unsuccessful as to certain matters, prevailing parties as defined by statute (Code of Civil Procedure §1032) are entitled to recover all costs reasonably incurred, and proof that parties were unsuccessful on particular items is not tantamount to a demonstration that such costs were unreasonably incurred. (Michell v. Olick (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1200.)

During the hearing, “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.” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) “This procedure provides an orderly and efficient way of placing disputed costs at issue on a line item basis.” (612 South LLC v. Laconic Ltd. Partnership (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1285.)

“[T]he mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a “proper objection” to an item, the necessity of which appears doubtful, or which does not appear to be proper on its face. [Citation.] However, “[i]f the items appear to be proper charges the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred by the defendant [citations], and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the [objecting party].” [Citations.]

The court’s first determination, therefore, is whether the statute expressly allows the particular item, and whether it appears proper on its face. [Citation.] If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show them to be unnecessary or unreasonable. [Citation.]” (Nelson, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 131.)

B. Trial Court’s Jurisdiction Pending Appeal

As an initial matter, Plaintiff contends that the pending appeal stays proceeding in the lower court and that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to decide the issue of costs. (E.g., Avee Motion, pp. 4:13-5:7.) However, the trial court retains jurisdiction to award or tax costs after an appeal is taken. (See Bankes v. Lucas (1992) 9 Cal. App. 4th 365, 368 [jurisdiction to award Civ. Code §1616 attorney fees as costs]; Robertson v. Rodriguez (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 347, 360 [jurisdiction to rule on motion for statutory attorney fees (Code of Civ. Proc., §425.16(c)) as costs]; Carpenter v. Jack In the Box Corp. (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 454, 461 [same].) Therefore, the Court will proceed to analyze these motions to tax costs on the merits.

C. Motion to Tax the Costs of Sobertec, LLC and Upfront Labs, LLC

Plaintiff moves to tax the following costs:

· No. 1: Filing and motion fees ($2,170.00)

· No. 4: Deposition costs ($1,006.30)

· No. 5: Service of Process Fees ($123.84)

1. Motion and Filing Fees

Plaintiff argues that the filing fees are duplicative, excessive, and unsupported because “Defendants were only required to pay first paper fees of $435 each, and collectively they only filed three motions to compel, which motions each sought the attorney’s fees and the filing fees as sanctions attending the motion, and which motions concluded with an award of the Defendants’ fees and costs on the motions.” (Sobertec and Upfront Labs Motion, p. 3:13-17.) Plaintiff asserts that “Defendants also filed a single ex parte application to shorten time on those motions” and “since Defendants have already been granted their costs on the motions to compel, they are, at very best, entitled to $930 (two first paper fees and an ex parte application fee) in filing fees.” (Id. at p. 3:17-20 [citing Medvei Decl., ¶ 6].)

In opposition, Sobertec, LLC and Upfront Labs, LLC explain that the $2,170.00 in filing fees are as follows:

· $870 first appearance fees for Sobertec, LLC and Upfront Labs, LLC;

· $300 filing fees for three discovery motions and one related ex parte application;

· $1,000 filing fees for two motions for summary judgment; and

· $60 filing fees for motion to file documents under seal in connection with motions for summary judgment. (Sobertec and Upfront Opp., p. 3:4-9 [citing Rothenberg Decl., ¶ 2].)

Sobertec, LLC and Upfront, LLC argue that although they “may have been awarded sanctions in connection with those discovery motions, those awards were consistently less than the total fees (and costs) in bringing those motions” and “the additional $300 in costs would help to ‘make whole’ the Defendants who prevailed on both the discovery motions and this case more generally.” (Id. at p. 3:12-17.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(1), filing and motion fees are allowable costs. Under section 1033.5, “An item not specifically allowable under subdivision (a) nor prohibited under subdivision (b) may nevertheless be recoverable in the discretion of the court if ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.’” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.)

“Neither subdivision (a) or (b) [of Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5] states whether attorney service charges for court filings and deliveries or mediators' fees are allowable or not. Thus, these costs fall within the ‘discretionary category,’ subdivision (c)—that is, they are allowable if in the court's discretion they were ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.’” (Sanford v. Rasnick (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1121, 1132.)

The Court finds that the requested motion and filing fee costs are reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation, thus are allowable. The Court also finds that the $300.00 fees associated with the motions to compel discovery and related ex parte application are not duplicative because although Defendants’ request for sanctions was awarded, this did not include the filing fees associated with these motions.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to tax the motion and filing fees.

2. Deposition Costs

Plaintiff argues that Sobertec, LLC and Upfront Labs, LLC’s deposition costs of $1,006.30 are unreasonable and unsupported because these defendants did not hold a deposition, and even if these costs are related to travel, then these travel costs would be certainly excessive because Defendants’ local counsel, Ms. Berle’s office is very close to the deposition location. (Sobertec and Upfront Motion, pp. 3:22-4:5.)

In opposition, Sobertec, LLC and Upfront Labs, LLC argues that these deposition costs are reasonable and supported because these costs account for $976.80 for the transcript of Plaintiff’s October 12, 2018 deposition and another $29.50 for travel expenses relating to that same deposition. (Sobertec and Upfront Opp., p. 3:18-22 [citing Rothenberg Decl., ¶ 3].) Sobertec, LLC and Upfront Labs, LLC maintain that it was necessary for them to purchase the transcript of Plaintiff’s deposition, as “Plaintiff was the sole witness identified with any knowledge of the fraud conspiracy alleged, making her the key witness as to the facts supporting the basis of this action.” (Id. at pp. 3:23-24, 4:9-10.)

Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5(a)(3) provides that costs for “[t]aking, video recording, and transcribing necessary depositions” are allowable, as are travel expenses to attend depositions. The Court finds that the deposition fees claimed by Sobertec, LLC and Upfront Labs, LLC are reasonable and necessary to the conduct of litigation.

The motion to tax the deposition costs is DENIED.

 

3. Service of Process Costs

 

Plaintiff argues that Sobertec, LLC and Upfront Labs, LLC never effectuated any service of process, thus the fees of $123.84 are not necessary to the conduct of litigation.

In opposition, Sobertec, LLC and Upfront Labs, LLC asserts that these “challenged fees were necessary in this case to effectuate service of a deposition subpoena for production of business records to Blue Shield of California,” thus these costs were reasonably necessary to the defense of this case.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(4), the following items are allowable as costs:

“Service of process by a public officer, registered process server, or other means, as follows:

(A) When service is by a public officer, the recoverable cost is the fee authorized by law at the time of service.

(B) If service is by a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, the recoverable cost is the amount actually incurred in effecting service, including, but not limited to, a stakeout or other means employed in locating the person to be served, unless those charges are successfully challenged by a party to the action.

(C) When service is by publication, the recoverable cost is the sum actually incurred in effecting service.

(D) When service is by a means other than that set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C), the recoverable cost is the lesser of the sum actually incurred, or the amount allowed to a public officer in this state for that service, except that the court may allow the sum actually incurred in effecting service upon application pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (c).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(4).)

The Court finds that the service of process costs for the deposition subpoena for production of business records to Blue Shield of California were reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation.

The Court DENIES the motion to tax service of process costs.

 

 

D. Motion to Tax the Costs of Avee

 

Plaintiff moves to tax the following costs:

· No. 1: Filing and motion fees ($4,605.84)

· No. 4: Deposition costs ($4,493.95)

· No. 14: Electronic filing or service fees ($1,778.85)

1. Motion and Filing Fees

 

Plaintiff argues that Avee “is, at very best, entitled to $1,055 in filing fees” because Avee “was only required to pay a first paper fee of $435, a $60 fee for a demurrer, a $60 fee for a motion to quash which was heard after the dismissal, and a single summary judgment motion for $500.” (Avee Motion, p. 3:16-20.)

In opposition, Avee argues that not only did it pay a first paper fee of $435.00, a $60.00 fee for a demurrer, a $60.00 fee for a motion to quash, and a $500.00 fee for a motion for summary judgment, it also “filed several other motions necessary to the litigation, including, for example, motions for pro hac vice admission and motions to seal.” (Avee Opp., p. 3:7-12 [citing Hileman Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 3].) Avee asserts that its “filing and motion fees also include messenger service charges for paper filings before the Court approved e-filing on January 1, 2019,” which “account for $1,244.20 of the total $4,605.80 requested filing and motion fees.” (Id. at p. 3:21-23 [citing Hileman Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 4].)

As explained above, filing and motion fees are allowable costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(1).) The Court finds that the filing and motion fees of $2,821.60 is allowable and are reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation.

“Costs for courier or messenger fees are not specifically enumerated as allowable costs in Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a), neither are they prohibited in subdivision (b). Thus, messenger fees may be recoverable in the trial court's discretion if ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.’” (Foothill-De Anza Community College District v. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 30 [citing Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2); Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 776.)

As to the remaining $1,244.20 costs for messenger fees, the Court finds that they were not reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation, but were instead merely convenient to Avee’s defense of this case.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to tax the motion and filing fees, in the amount of $1,244.20.

2. Deposition Costs

 

Plaintiff argues that the deposition costs of $4,493.95 are unreasonable and unsupported, as Avee held a deposition that involved about an hour of testimony. (Avee Motion, p. 3:21-22.) Plaintiff also argues that although no worksheet is attached, if these costs “are travel costs, they are certainly excessive, even factoring in a flight (which was unnecessary since Kirkland & Ellis employs many local counsel).” (Id. at p. 3:24-28.)

In opposition, Avee argues that the deposition travel costs are not excessive and Avee has a right to be reimbursed for these costs, as “Avee’s primary counsel in this case, James R.P. Hileman, practices in Kirkland & Ellis’ Chicago office” and because he was “the attorney most involved in Avee’s day-to-day defense, Mr. Hileman attended the deposition on Avee’s behalf.” (Avee Opp., p. 4:17-24 [citing Hileman Decl. ¶¶ 1-4].) Avee maintains that these deposition costs of $1,853.20 for the flight ($1,008.60), hotel fees ($401.10), and car travel costs ($443.50) are reasonable and should be awarded. (Id. at p. 5:6-8 [citing Hileman Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 1].)

Avee also argues that he deposition costs of $1,633.25 for a court reporter and $1,007.50 for a videographer are reasonable and necessary to the conduct of litigation because Plaintiff’s “testimony provided key evidence showing she had no personal knowledge to support her claims against Avee.” (Id. at p. 5:19-23 [citing Hileman Decl., ¶ 5].)

“Although the fees charged by court-retained reporters are fixed by statute (Gov. Code, §§ 69947, 69948, 69950), there is no statute regulating the fees charged by private reporting firms, and [private] reporters are free to charge all the market will bear.” (Urban Pacific Equities Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 688, 691-692.) The costs at issue here are not those by a court-retained reporter, but those incurred by Avee for a deposition transcribed by a private reporter.

Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5(a)(3) provides that costs for “[t]aking, video recording, and transcribing necessary depositions” are allowable, as are travel expenses to attend depositions.

The Court finds that the deposition fees of $2,640.75 for the court reporter and videographer are reasonable and necessary to the conduct of litigation.

However, the Court finds that the travel costs associated with the deposition were merely convenient rather than necessary to the conduct of litigation. For example, the hotel costs included a room service dinner charge of $48.23, which was not necessary to the conduct of litigation. (See Hileman Decl., Ex. 1.) Further, even if Mr. Hileman was Avee’s counsel most involved in Avee’s day-to-day defense, Avee has not shown that another counsel in the location office could not have attended the deposition instead. Avee has not demonstrated how these costs are necessary and Plaintiff should not have to bear the costs of lodging, travel, and meals as a result of Defendant’s choice of counsel if from another state, when counsel from Kirkland & Ellis’ local office could have attended the deposition.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs in the amount of $1,853.20.

3. Electronic Filing and Service Fees

 

Plaintiff argues that although Avee claims $1,778.85 in electronic filing and service fees, this is simply unsupportable. (Avee Motion, p. 4:6-12.)

In opposition, Avee asserts that its e-filing fees are supported and are entirely a result of Plaintiff’s litigation tactics. (Avee Opp., p. 4:5-7 [citing Hileman Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. 5].) Avee argues that “by attempting to amend her complaint and add Alere Non-Parties to the case at the eleventh hour, she forced those parties to file a motion opposing her right to amend” and “Alere Non-Parties first-filing costs amount for $1,741.75 of the total $1,778.85 claimed e-filing fees.” (Id. at p. 4:7-10 [citing Hileman Decl., ¶¶10-11, Ex. 5].) Avee asserts that the Alere Non-Parties are also “prevailing parties” because the “Court validated Alere Non-Parties’ position by denying Plaintiff the right to amend her complaint and add them as defendants.” (Id. at p. 4:11-14.) Avee argues that “the Alere Non-Parties’ filing fees were undoubtedly ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation’ and should be awarded.” (Id. at p. 4:14-16.)

As the memorandum of costs at issue was only filed by Avee (see Memorandum of Costs, p. 1), not the Alere Non-Parties, Defendant Avee may only seek costs that it incurred itself, not the costs another defendant incurred. The Court finds that the e-filing fees Avee incurred in the amount of $37.10 are allowable and reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(1).)

As the memorandum of costs at issue was only filed on behalf of Avee, Avee may not seek the Alere Non-Parties’ costs in the amount of $1,741.75.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to tax the costs of the e-filing and service fees in the amount of $1,741.75.

E. Conclusion

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs as to Sobertec and Upfront. Sobertec and Upfront are entitled to $3,474.80 in costs as indicated below.

The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs as to Avee. The Court taxes $4,819.15 and grants Avee $6,059.49 in costs as indicated below.

Motion to Tax Costs – Sobertec and Upfront

Item No.

Item

Amount Requested

Amount Taxed

Amount Granted

1

Filing and motion fees

$2,170.00

$0.00

$2,170.00

2

Jury fees

$150.00

$0.00

$150.00

3

Jury food and lodging

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

4

Deposition costs

$1,006.30

$0.00

$1,006.30

5

Service of process

$123.84

$0.00

$123.84

6

Attachment expenses

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

7

Surety bond premiums

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

8

Witness fees

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

9

Court-ordered transcripts

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

10

Attorneys fees

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

11

Court reporter fees

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

12

Models, blowups, photocopies

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

13

Interpreter fees

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

14

Fees for electronic filing or service

$24.66

$0.00

$24.66

15

Fees for hosting electronic documents

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

16

Other

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

TOTAL

$3,474.80

$0.00

$3,474.80

Motion to Tax Costs – Avee

Item No.

Item

Amount Requested

Amount Taxed

Amount Granted

1

Filing and motion fees

$4,605.84

$1,224.20

$3,381.64

2

Jury fees

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

3

Jury food and lodging

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

4

Deposition costs

$4,493.95

$1,853.20

$2,640.75

5

Service of process

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

6

Attachment expenses

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

7

Surety bond premiums

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

8

Witness fees

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

9

Court-ordered transcripts

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

10

Attorneys fees

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

11

Court reporter fees

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

12

Models, blowups, photocopies

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

13

Interpreter fees

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

14

Fees for electronic filing or service

$1,778.85

$1,741.75

$37.10

15

Fees for hosting electronic documents

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

16

Other

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

TOTAL

$10,878.64

$4,819.15

$6,059.49

Case Number: BC674091    Hearing Date: November 06, 2019    Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion to Tax Costs

Moving Party: Plaintiff People of the State of California ex rel. Alison Tonti

Resp. Party: Defendants Living Rebos, LLC and M-Brace Treatment, Inc.

Plaintiff’s motion to tax the costs of Defendants Living Rebos, LLC and M-Brace Treatment, Inc. is GRANTED in part. The Court taxes the requested costs by $1,516.31, and grants costs in the amount of $7,407.51.

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff People of the State of California ex rel. Alison Tonti (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action on August 29, 2017. On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Living Rebos, LLC; H&H Testing, Inc.; Avee Laboratories, Inc.; M-Brace Treatment, Inc.; Sobertec, LLC; Millennium Health, LLC; Upfront Labs, LLC; Gloriosa Management, LLC; Gregory Van Dyke; UB Laboratories, Inc.; Cordova Medical Group, Inc.; Genesis Molecular Diagnostics, LLC; and Zen Recovery, LLC for violation of the California Insurance Frauds Prevention Action (“CIFPA”). The amended complaint contains allegations against 100 unidentified Doe defendants. (Am. Compl. ¶ 18.)

On January 3, 2019 and January 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed requests to amend her amended complaint by substituting Alere, Inc., Alere Toxicology Services, Inc., Global Analytical Development, LLC, and Abbott Laboratories (collectively, “Alere Defendants”) for Doe Defendants 5-8. On January 25, 2018, the Court granted Defendant Avee Laboratories, Inc.’s (“Avee”) motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff presented no evidence to establish that Avee violated the CIFPA.

On January 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of the entire action with prejudice.

On February 4, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Avee Laboratories, Inc. (“Avee”) motion to deny requests to amend.

On February 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment in this matter and all orders that are separately appealable, including but not limited to the dismissal entered on January 29, 2019, Austin v. Valverde (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 546, 550-551, and all prior appealable orders, as well as the subsequent order granting the motion to quash entered on February 4, 2019.

On February 19, 2019, Living Rebos, LLC and M-Brace Treatment, Inc. filed their memorandum of costs.

On March 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to tax costs claimed by Defendants Living Rebos, LLC and M-Brace Treatment, Inc.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff moves to tax and/or strike the costs claimed by Defendants Living Rebos, LLC and M-Brace Treatment, Inc. on the grounds that “1) the costs claimed are unreasonable, unsubstantiated, and/or unrecoverable; 2) the Court does not have jurisdiction to award costs while this appeal is pending under the ‘effect’ test because ‘costs-only’ judgments are expressly stayed by statute pending appeal.” (Motion, pp. 1:28-2:4.)

A. Relevant Law

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032(b).)

After judgment is entered, the prevailing party “who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a).) “The memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in this case.” (Id.)

In turn, the losing party may file a motion to strike or tax costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b).) Procedurally, “[a]ny notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum.” (Id.)

Even where parties are unsuccessful as to certain matters, prevailing parties as defined by statute (Code of Civil Procedure §1032) are entitled to recover all costs reasonably incurred, and proof that parties were unsuccessful on particular items is not tantamount to a demonstration that such costs were unreasonably incurred. (Michell v. Olick (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1200.)

During the hearing, “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.” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) “This procedure provides an orderly and efficient way of placing disputed costs at issue on a line item basis.” (612 South LLC v. Laconic Ltd. Partnership (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1285.)

“[T]he mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a “proper objection” to an item, the necessity of which appears doubtful, or which does not appear to be proper on its face. [Citation.] However, “[i]f the items appear to be proper charges the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred by the defendant [citations], and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the [objecting party].” [Citations.]

The court’s first determination, therefore, is whether the statute expressly allows the particular item, and whether it appears proper on its face. [Citation.] If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show them to be unnecessary or unreasonable. [Citation.]” (Nelson, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 131.)

B. Discussion

Plaintiff moves to tax the following costs:

· No. 1: Filing and motion fees ($4,913.16)

· No. 4: Deposition costs ($2,320.00)

· No. 5: Service of Process Fees ($1,166.66)

· No. 16: Court Call Costs ($374.00)

1. Trial Court’s Jurisdiction Pending Appeal

As an initial matter, Plaintiff contends that the pending appeal stays proceeding in the lower court and that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to decide the issue of costs. (Motion, p. 5:3-19.) However, the trial court retains jurisdiction to award or tax costs after an appeal is taken. (See Bankes v. Lucas (1992) 9 Cal. App. 4th 365, 368 [jurisdiction to award Civ. Code §1616 attorney fees as costs]; Robertson v. Rodriguez (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 347, 360 [jurisdiction to rule on motion for statutory attorney fees (Code of Civ. Proc., §425.16(c)) as costs]; Carpenter v. Jack In the Box Corp. (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 454, 461 [same].)

Therefore, the Court will proceed to analyze the motion to tax costs on its merits.

2. Motion and Filing Fees

Plaintiff argues that following fees are not recoverable:

· The fee for opposing the writ because Plaintiff prevailed on the writ.

· The motion rescheduling fees because they are not filing fees and are not required or necessary.

· Costs for motion for summary judgment that was not held.

· Motion for Sanctions that sought fees and costs that was granted, thus this is a duplicative request to what was already granted.

· Motions filed under seal that were not heard or not necessary.

· $2,648.26 in attorney service fees that are not filing fees. (Motion, p. 3:16-24.)

Plaintiff argues that “the filing fees request must be reduced by $3,918.96, with a maximum entitlement of fees being $994.20 in the event the Court enters costs pending an appeal.” (Id. at pp. 3:24-4:2.)

In opposition, Defendants first argue that they may recover their costs for filing an opposition to Plaintiff’s writ of mandate because they are the prevailing parties in this action and these filing fees are recoverable as a matter of right. (Opp., p. 3:6-18 [referencing Code Civ. Proc., §1032(a)(4)].)

Next, Defendants maintain that their other motions were reasonably necessary for the defense of this litigation and they are entitled to recover these costs even if they were never heard because “it was Plaintiff who made Defendants’ remaining hearings moot by voluntarily dismissing her claims before the hearings occurred” and because Plaintiff provides no evidence or argument to the contrary that their other discovery, summary judgment, and quash motions were not reasonably necessary. (Id. at pp. 3:19-4:5.)

However, Defendants “agree to withdraw their request to recover costs in the amount of $61.65 for Defendants’ Motion for Monetary Sanctions as such costs were granted to Defendants at the time of the hearing for the subject motion.” (Id. at p. 4:6-8 [referencing Memorandum of Costs, p. 4, No. 12].)

Third, Defendants argue that the “rescheduling fees, which are required by the Court's electronic filing system to preserve or change hearings, are often the result of meet and confer efforts or status changes in the litigation.” (Id. at p. 4:12-14.) Defendants assert that “such fees serve no purpose other than as it relates to filing motions; common sense dictates that rescheduling fees are therefore recoverable as ‘filing’ and ‘motion’ fees within the meaning of section 1033.5(a)(1).” (Id. at p. 4:14-17.)

Lastly, Defendants argue that the attorney service fees for court filings and deliveries are recoverable because “each of these costs were incurred as a result of motions filed and served in this case to prepare this case for trial, all of which were reasonable and warranted to ensure that Defendants’ interests were protected against Plaintiff’s claims.” (Id. at p. 4:18-24.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(1), filing and motion fees are allowable costs. Under section 1033.5, “An item not specifically allowable under subdivision (a) nor prohibited under subdivision (b) may nevertheless be recoverable in the discretion of the court if ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.’” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.)

“Neither subdivision (a) or (b) [of Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5] states whether attorney service charges for court filings and deliveries or mediators' fees are allowable or not. Thus, these costs fall within the ‘discretionary category,’ subdivision (c)—that is, they are allowable if in the court's discretion they were ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.’” (Sanford v. Rasnick (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1121, 1132.)

The Court agrees that the motion for monetary sanction costs are duplicative. However, the Court finds the remainder of Defendants’ requested motion and filing fee costs are reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, thus are allowable.

The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion to tax the filing fee for the motion for monetary sanctions costs, in the amount of $61.65.

3. Deposition Costs

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ deposition costs in the amount of $2,320.00 are unreasonable and unsupported. (Motion, p. 4:3.) Plaintiff argues that the costs for transcribing a deposition are set by Government Code section 69950, which allows a party to “recover eighty-five cents ($0.85) for each 100 words transcribed.” (Id. at p. 3:25-26 [citing Gov. Code §69950(a)].) Plaintiff states that “the cost requested by Defendants would cover 272,941 words[; however] the deposition is approximately 38,800 words (being generous) at 200 words per page for 194 pages, possibly entitling Defendants to, at most, $329.80 in transcription costs.” (Id. at p. 4:7-10.)

In opposition, Defendants argue that the deposition costs are reasonable and supported. (Opp., p. 5:4.) Defendants assert that “Section 66950 applies only to official court reporters appointed by the Superior Court and has no bearing on costs associated with a private court reporter for a deposition, as is the case here.” (Id. at p. 5:5-8.) Defendants maintain that “there is no statute fixing fees of private court reporters.” (Id. at p. 5:8-9.) Defendants explain that Plaintiff’s deposition was necessary because “Plaintiff was the sole witness identified with any knowledge of the fraud conspiracy alleged, making her the key witness as to the facts supporting the basis of this action.” (Id. at p. 5:14-19.)

“Although the fees charged by court-retained reporters are fixed by statute (Gov. Code, §§ 69947, 69948, 69950), there is no statute regulating the fees charged by private reporting firms, and [private] reporters are free to charge all the market will bear.” (Urban Pacific Equities Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 688, 691-692.) The costs at issue here are not those by a court-retained reporter, but those incurred by Defendant for a deposition transcribed by a private reporter.

Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5(a)(3) provides that costs for “[t]aking, video recording, and transcribing necessary depositions” are allowable, as are travel expenses to attend depositions. The Court finds that the deposition fees are reasonable and necessary to the conduct of litigation.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to tax the deposition costs.

4. Service of Process and Messenger Fees

 

Plaintiff argues that the service of process fees of $968.80 to personally serve the other attorneys in this case with documents are not recoverable because these documents can be served by other methods such as mail or overnight delivery. (Motion, p. 4:11-13.) Plaintiff asserts that the service of process fees associated with personally serving documents are not necessary to the conduct of litigation, thus are not recoverable. (Id. at p. 4:14-16.) Plaintiff also argues that “Defendants claim to have served Blue Shield, but Plaintiff was not served with any notice or copy of such a subpoena as it is typically required under section 1983.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure” thus “Defendants are not entitled to any service of process costs.” (Id. at p. 4:16-19.)

In opposition, Defendants argue that “Plaintiff’s pure speculation that mail service could have been used in place of a courier is insufficient to demonstrate that the services were unnecessary, particularly given the complexity of the case.” (Opp., p. 6:2-4.) Defendants maintains that the messenger fees were reasonably necessary to the defense of “this case because of the sheer volume of motions and pleadings filed and served, the heavy workload, and tight deadlines.” (Id. at p. 6:7-12.)

Defendants assert that “Plaintiff’s separate challenge to the costs for service of a third party subpoena to Blue Shield is also baseless” because “Plaintiff was served with a Notice to Consumer of the subpoena issued by Defendants to Blue Shield of California on July 6, 2018.” (Id. at p. 6:13-16 [citing Mackin Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A].)

In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the messenger costs were actually incurred as opposed to merely fabricated because “the only evidence presented to support the messenger costs claimed is a subpoena to Blue Shield, but even the subpoena provided as evidence of costs incurred indicates that the fee for service was zero.” (Reply, p. 3:13-19 [citing Ex. A to Opposition, p. 6 (Fee for service: $ .00)].) Plaintiff argues that Defendants have not shown why it is necessary to incur messenger fees when documents can be served by regular mail. (Id. at p. 2:6-16.)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(4), the following items are allowable as costs:

“Service of process by a public officer, registered process server, or other means, as follows:

(A) When service is by a public officer, the recoverable cost is the fee authorized by law at the time of service.

(B) If service is by a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, the recoverable cost is the amount actually incurred in effecting service, including, but not limited to, a stakeout or other means employed in locating the person to be served, unless those charges are successfully challenged by a party to the action.

(C) When service is by publication, the recoverable cost is the sum actually incurred in effecting service.

(D) When service is by a means other than that set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C), the recoverable cost is the lesser of the sum actually incurred, or the amount allowed to a public officer in this state for that service, except that the court may allow the sum actually incurred in effecting service upon application pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (c).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(4).)

“Costs for courier or messenger fees are not specifically enumerated as allowable costs in Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a), neither are they prohibited in subdivision (b). Thus, messenger fees may be recoverable in the trial court's discretion if ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.’” (Foothill-De Anza Community College District v. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 30 [citing Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2); Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 776.)

The litigation conduct described by Defendants is not unique – many litigants file numerous motions and pleadings, encounter a heavy workload and encounter tight deadlines. (See Opp., p. 6:7-12.) However, serving parties by a messenger to deal with ordinary litigation conduct is merely convenient and Defendants have not demonstrated why incurring service of process costs in their specific case is necessary to the conduct of litigation.

The Court finds that the service of process costs of $968.80 for Medivei Law Group, Helton Law Group, Ardensen Cane Molner, Baker Hostetler, Kirkland & Ellis, Kron & Card, LLP, and Garcia & Phan, APC were not reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation, but rather were merely convenient to its preparation because Defendants could have used alternative means to send the documents without using a messenger or courier. (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(c)(2).) Further, Defendants have not demonstrated that the service of process costs of $197.86 for Blue Shield of CA were necessary to the conduct of litigation, especially because the proof of service for deposition subpoena indicates that Defendants were charged a $0.00 fee for the service. (See Opp., Ex. A, “Proof of Service of Deposition Subpoena,” No. 1(f).)

Accordingly, the motion to tax the $1,166.66 in costs associated with service of process is GRANTED.

5. Court Call Costs

Plaintiff asserts that “although Courtcall costs are recoverable, Defendants do not set forth the amount of times they used Courtcall and the particular fee charged in a given instance (the fee increased in 2019).” (Motion, p. 4:21-22.) Plaintiff argues that “the sum, $374, does not divide to an integer, whether it is divided by the 2019 fee of $94, or $86 (the “late” Courtcall fees should not be recoverable) and therefore these costs are dubious and not substantiated.” (Id. at pp. 4:23-5:1.) Plaintiff states that it “is aware of a single instance where Defendants appeared by Courtcall and thus a single fee of $86 appears reasonable.” (Id. at p. 5:1-2.)

In opposition, Defendants argue that the CourtCall costs are reasonable and warranted. (Opp., p. 6:17.) Defendants assert that “Plaintiff has no personal knowledge of the costs incurred, and her counsel is not a mathematician.” (Id. at p. 6:23-24.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s counsel did not attend most of the hearings in this case to know who appeared and “Plaintiff’s general memory of the hearings in this multiparty and complex litigation is plainly insufficient to meet her burden to show these costs were neither incurred nor reasonable or necessary.” (Id. at p. 6:25-27.) Defendants assert that their “verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of the propriety of these costs, all of which were reasonably incurred in order to defend against Plaintiffs claims.” (Id. at p. 7:1-3 [citing Mackin Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. B].)

Defendants’ counsel declares that “the total costs incurred by Defendants for Courtcall exceeded $374” and “in preparing Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs, [counsel] inadvertently miscalculated the total costs incurred as totaling $374, instead of the true figure of $458.” (Mackin Decl., ¶3.) Defendants’ counsel attaches the CourtCall invoices incurred by Defendants to demonstrate the costs incurred.

A review of Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a) reveals that it does not identify costs for Court Call as an allowable cost. Further, section 1033.5(b) does not bar the recovery of these costs. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(c), the Court may award the cost if it is “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.”

The Court finds that Defendants did not necessarily incur the Court Call fees because their counsel could have driven to the Court to make the appearances. The Court Call costs were incurred because it is more convenient to appear through Court Call than to drive to the Court. However, it appears that Plaintiff concedes that these costs for Court Call are recoverable but only asserts that a single fee of $86 is reasonable, thus requesting that the Court tax the remaining $288.00 of the $374.00 as excessive costs. Accordingly, the Court taxes $288.00 from No. 16.

C. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to tax the costs of Defendants Living Rebos, LLC and M-Brace Treatment, Inc. is GRANTED in part. The Court taxes the requested costs by $1,516.31, and grants costs in the amount of $7,407.51 as indicated in the spreadsheet below.

Item No.

Item

Amount Requested

Amount Taxed

Amount Granted

1

Filing and motion fees

$4,913.16

$61.65

$4,851.51

2

Jury fees

$150.00

$0.00

$150.00

3

Jury food and lodging

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

4

Deposition costs

$2,320.00

$0.00

$2,320.00

5

Service of process

$1,166.66

$1,166.66

$0.00

6

Attachment expenses

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

7

Surety bond premiums

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

8

Witness fees

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

9

Court-ordered transcripts

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

10

Attorneys fees

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

11

Court reporter fees

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

12

Models, blowups, photocopies

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

13

Interpreter fees

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

14

Fees for electronic filing or service

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

15

Fees for hosting electronic documents

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

16

Other

$374.00

$288.00

$86.00

TOTAL

$8,923.82

$1,516.31

$7,407.51