Case Number: KC068830 Hearing Date: March 27, 2018 Dept: J

Re: Carmen Salcido v. Platinum Home Mortgage Corporation, etc., et al. (KC068830)

MOTION TO TAX COSTS

Moving Parties: Plaintiff Carmen Salcido

Respondents: Defendants Platinum Home Mortgage Corporation, New Ventures, Inc., Sanjesh Sharma and Aracely Sharma

POS: Moving OK; Opposing OK

Plaintiff alleges that she has been damaged in the amount of $405,355.63, plus interest and attorney’s fees, due to defendants’ failure to honor an Earnings Withholding Order. The complaint, filed on 10/31/16, asserts causes of action against Defendants Platinum Home Mortgage Corporation (Platinum), New Ventures, Inc. (“NVI”), Sanjesh Sharma (“S. Sharma”), Aracely Sharma (“A. Sharma”) and Does 1-10 for:

Failure to Honor Earnings Withholding Order (v. Platinum only)
Failure to Honor Assignment Order (v. all defendants)
Tortious Acts to Hinder, Deter and Defraud Creditor (v. Platinum and S. Sharma only)
Tortious Acts to Hinder, Deter and Defraud Creditor (v. Platinum and S. Sharma only)

On 11/2/17, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On 11/27/17, the judgment was entered. On 12/7/17, plaintiff filed her “Notice of Appeal.”

Plaintiff Carmen Salcido (“plaintiff”) moves the court, per CRC Rule 3.1700, for an order taxing defendants’ costs in their entirety, on the basis that (1) it is unclear which of the defendants has filed the Memorandum of Costs; (2) in the event it is filed on behalf of all defendants, each cannot be entitled to the full amount of costs claimed and that (3) each defendant should be required to file their own Memorandum of Costs as the costs claimed/awarded are subject to an offset with respect to Defendant Sanjesh Sharma (against whom plaintiff holds an unsatisfied money judgment) and his spouse, Defendant Aracely Sharma.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE: Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the judgment and Memorandum of Costs is granted.

“[A] prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” CCP § 1032(b). However, “[a]n award of costs shall be subject to the following:…(2) Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” CCP § 1033.5(c)(2). The losing party may dispute any or all of the items in the prevailing party’s memorandum of costs by a motion to strike or tax costs. CRC 3.1700(b). “If items on their face appear to be proper charges, 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. ‘On the other hand, if items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.’ (Ladas [v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993)] 19 Cal.App.4th [764,] 774). However, whether a cost item was reasonably necessary is still a question of fact to be decided by the trial court. (Ibid.)” Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266.

Plaintiff has not met her burden to show that defendants’ costs are unnecessary and/or unreasonable. Plaintiff claims that “it is unclear which of the Defendants has filed the Memorandum of Costs at issue” (Notice, 2:2-3) because defendants’ counsel filed only one Memorandum of Costs for all four defendants. It is evident, however, that all defendants request an award of costs incurred for filing fees and deposition-related costs. Defendants’ counsel Aaron Gladstein provided an itemized breakdown of defendants’ costs to plaintiff’s counsel Marta Roza (“Roza”) on 12/15/17, in response to Rosa’s request. Each of the filings were submitted jointly by all four defendants, and the two depositions were taken by defendants’ counsel on behalf of, and in defense of, all four defendants. There is no need to apportion an award of these costs to each defendant.

The court determines that defendants are entitled to a collective award of $3,652.04 in costs. The motion, then, is denied.