Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC685851    Hearing Date: December 03, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

After review of the court file, the Court makes the following order:

Department 5 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.

AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1:

This case is hereby transferred for reassignment purposes only to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE DENNIS LANDIN presiding in DEPT. 51 of the STANLEY MOSK Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the case for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.

DEFENDANTS shall provide notice to all parties of record.

DATED: November 26, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC685851    Hearing Date: November 15, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

BACKGROUND

Defendant Dignity Health, Inc. (“Defendant”) prevailed on its summary judgment motion against Plaintiffs Whitney Franklin and Josiyah Knight (“Plaintiffs”). Defendant filed a memorandum of costs on September 18, 2019. Plaintiffs move to tax Defendant’s claimed costs. Defendant then amended its memorandum of costs by way of an amended opposition, seeking only: (1) Filing and motions fees in the amount of $935, (2) Jury fees in the amount of $150, and (3) Deposition costs in the amount of $803. Based upon this amendment, the Court denies the motion and orders that these costs—which total $1,888—be paid by Plaintiff.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a) sets forth items that are allowable as costs.  Allowable costs under Section 1033.5 must be “reasonably necessary to the conduct of this litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation” and “reasonable in amount.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subds. (c)(2), (3).) “Items not mentioned in [Section 1033.5] and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court’s discretion.” (Id., subd. (c)(4).)

On a motion to tax, “[i]f the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. However, because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774, internal citations omitted.) “The court’s first determination, therefore, is whether the statute expressly allows the item, and whether it appears proper on its face. If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show them to be unnecessary or unreasonable.” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131, internal citations omitted.) The objecting party does not meet this burden by arguing that the costs were not necessary or reasonable, but must present evidence and prove that the costs are not recoverable. (Litt v Med. Ctr. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1224; Seever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557.)

DISCUSSION

As Plaintiff did not “recover any relief against” Defendant, Defendant is the prevailing party in this action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) It is therefore entitled to recover its costs. Plaintiff moves to tax Defendant’s claimed costs on the basis that Defendant failed to present supporting documentation. Defendant was not required to do so in connection with its memorandum of costs. (See Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267.) Defendant has now submitted supporting documentation, which the Court concludes is sufficient to support Defendant’s claimed costs. The Court therefore denies the motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court interprets Defendant’s amended opposition as a request to amend its memorandum of costs to eliminate $6,373 in costs. That unopposed request is granted, leaving only $1,888 in costs. With respect to these costs, Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs is denied. Plaintiff shall pay Defendant costs in the amount of $1,888 within thirty (30) days of notice. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

DATED: November 15, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court