The court DENIES the motion of Plaintiff Jose Eulogio Bonilla to tax costs. (CCP 436 (b); 1033.5.) Although Plaintiff failed to cite the proper Rule of Court — CRC 3.1700, the court has nevertheless considered the substantive motion.

On 4/16/14, Defendants Raymond E. Brown and Bohm Matsen Kegel & Aguilera filed a memorandum of costs on seeking $1,259.85 for filing and motion fees. In Opposition, Defendants have now submitted an itemized list of costs and supporting receipts that establish that the costs were genuine and reasonable. Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden to prove the costs were not incurred and were not reasonable.

The party moving to tax costs has the burden to show that the costs claimed by the prevailing party are not reasonable or necessary. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) When a prevailing party files a verified memorandum of costs, if the items on their face appear to be proper charges, the memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence that they were proper. (Ibid.)

Mere conclusory allegations that costs are unnecessary or unreasonable are not sufficient to meet the objecting party’s burden on a motion to tax costs. (County of Kern v. Ginn (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1113–1114.)

Defendants shall serve notice of this ruling.