Case Number: BC619827 Hearing Date: September 09, 2019 Dept: 47

Darnell Monday, et al. v. Charlie Beck, et al.

MOTION TO TAX COSTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Darnell Monday, by and through his guardian ad litem, Ralph Monday; and LaTanya Monday

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiffs alleged that LAPD officers beat Plaintiff Darnell Monday in front of his mother and other family members, falsely imprisoned him, subjected him to malicious prosecution, and failed to provide him with appropriate medical or psychiatric services while he was detained, arrested, and incarcerated.

At the end of the presentation of Plaintiff’s case-in-chief, during the jury trial in this matter, this Court granted Defendant’s motion for non-suit in its entirety, and a judgment for defendant was entered accordingly.

Plaintiffs move to tax Defendants’ memorandum of costs.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Darnell Monday, by and through his guardian ad litem Ralph Monday, and LaTanya Monday’s motion to tax costs is GRANTED as to Item No. 11 in the amount of $1,968 and is otherwise DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion To Tax Costs

Plaintiffs first argue that Defendants’ costs should be taxed in their entirety because Plaintiffs do not have the financial resources to pay the costs.

Plaintiffs cite to federal authorities that stand for the proposition that “[d]istrict courts should consider the financial resources of the plaintiff and the amount of costs in civil rights cases.” (Stanley v. Univ. of Southern Calif. (9th Cir. 1999) 178 F.3d 1069, 1079.) Under California law, however, trial courts do not have discretion to reduce allowable costs based on a party’s inability to pay. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 129-130.) Plaintiffs cite a California case discussing such discretion in the context of CCP § 998, but “[t]here is no language in section 998 which would transfer the discretion of that section to a motion to tax costs recoverable by the prevailing party under sections 1032 and 1033.5, and unrelated to section 998.” (Nelson, supra, 72 Cal. App. 4th at 129.)

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ request to tax Defendants’ costs in their entirety is denied, but the Court will now address Plaintiffs’ arguments as to specific items.

1. Item No. 4 (Deposition Costs).

Plaintiffs move to tax $349.75 of Defendants’ deposition costs that total $1,447.55.

The prevailing party is entitled to recover the costs of taking, video recording, and transcribing “necessary” depositions. (CCP § 1033.5(a)(3).) Here, Plaintiffs argue that the amount claimed for transcribing Justin Wade’s deposition ($349.75) was unnecessary because “Plaintiffs’ counsel deposed Mr. Wade, and Defendants already had the original deposition transcript.” (Motion, at pp. 5-6.)

This amount appears proper on its face, however, and therefore it is presumed reasonable. (Ladas v. California State Auto Ass’n (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774-776.) Plaintiffs have not provided evidence that these costs were unreasonable or unnecessary, such as proof that they had already provided the 113-page transcript of this deposition to Defendants before Defendants had it transcribed.

Accordingly, the motion to tax costs is DENIED as to Item No. 4.

2. Item No. 8 (Witness Fees).

Plaintiffs seek to tax $43.40 of Defendants’ witness fees totaling $493.40.

A prevailing party is entitled to recover witness fees. (CCP § 1033.5(a)(7).)

Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of demonstrating that these costs were unnecessary or unreasonable. Plaintiffs argue that these costs are unnecessary and excessive, but Defendants are not required to justify this expense, which appears reasonable on its face, unless Plaintiffs meet their burden to show that this cost was unnecessary or unreasonable. No evidence is presented, for example, that the $43.40 amount is out of line with the fees for other witnesses.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to Item No. 8.

3. Item No. 11 (Court Reporter Fees).

Plaintiffs seek to tax $1,968.00 of Defendants’ court reporter fees totaling $5,271.00.

Costs for transcripts not ordered by the court are allowable only when expressly authorized by law. (CCP § 1033.5(b)(5).) The challenged transcripts were not ordered by this Court, and their costs are not otherwise authorized by law.

The motion to tax costs is GRANTED as to Item No. 11 in the amount of $1,968.00.

5. Item No. 16 (Other Costs).

Plaintiffs seek to tax Defendants’ other costs of audio transcription fees totaling $292.50.

As with Item No. 4, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants already had these transcripts, but they have presented no evidence as such. Costs in a verified memorandum of costs that appear proper on their face are presumed reasonable. (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 774-776.) Here, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence that they are unreasonable.

Accordingly, the motion to tax costs is DENIED as to Item No. 16.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to tax costs is GRANTED as to Item No. 11 in the amount of $1,968 and is otherwise DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2019 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court