Case Name: Jacome v Vasona Creek Healthcare Center, 16412 Los Gatos Blvd, LLC
Case No: 113CV251129

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Tax Costs which Defendants Oppose. The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for the reasons set forth below

Factual and Procedural Background
In August, 2013 Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Vasona Creek Healthcare Center and 16412 Los Gatos Blvd LLC after she fell in a parking lot in August, 2011, allegedly due to uneven pavement. Defendants thereafter filed answers, respectively, as Golden Oak Holdings, LLC dba Vasona Creek Healthcare Center and 16412 Los Gatos Boulevard, LLC.

After conducting extensive discovery, defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which the Court granted on 12-4-14.
Notice of the Ruling Granting the Summary Judgment Motion was served on 12-8-14.
On 12-10-14, Defendants filed a Memorandum of Costs seeking to recover $10,978.59.
On 12-30-14 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Tax Costs setting the hearing for March 5, 2015.
On 2-17-15, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs.

Legal Analysis
Defendants timely filed their Memorandum of Costs and Plaintiff timely filed her opposition to same. ( See,CRC 3.1700 (a)(1) (b)(1).
As a matter of right, a prevailing party is entitled to recover costs. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1032(b). A “prevailing party” includes the party with a net monetary recovery, or a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief. Id., § 1032(a)(4). Plaintiff argues Defendants are not the “prevailing parties” because they did not obtain a net monetary recovery. (Plaintiff’s moving papers p.6) This argument is without merit. Defendants are clearly the prevailing parties because plaintiff did not recover any relief as a result of the ruling on defendants’ summary judgment motion. Defendants won the case. Plaintiff lost and is responsible for paying statutory costs that were reasonable and necessary. The fact that plaintiff had another lawyer when the complaint was filed is irrelevant. Current counsel had the same duty to pursue only actions she believed were meritorious. (See, Business and Professions Code Section 6068 (g). Moreover, the costs are recoverable against plaintiff, directly, not plaintiff’s counsel who is a not a party to the action.

The Court has reviewed defendants’ Memorandum of Costs and is satisfied that the expenses incurred were reasonable and necessary to conduct the litigation. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5 (a) (3) permits the recovery of costs for taking, videotaping and transcribing necessary depositions as well as travel expenses to attend depositions. Chaaban v Wet Seal Inc (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 49, 57. Plaintiff’s deposition was obviously necessary as was CNA, Romel Cortez, (who witnessed the incident) and Laurel Ninevetch (who assessed plaintiff and provided first aid) Defendants were well within their rights to subpoena records from all of the healthcare providers plaintiff identified in the lawsuit. Those costs are reasonable, necessary and recoverable.

Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Defendants shall recover costs of $10,978.59