Case Name: Leonicio Esquivel et al vs Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel Group, Inc. et al
Case No.: 16CV290380

Hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs. Plaintiff is mistaken about the effect of an appeal on pending post-trial motions such as this. An appeal does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction to decide such post-trial motions such as motions for new trial, attorney fees or to tax costs. (See Bankes v. Lucas (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 365; CCP 916(a).) The Court will not at this point decide if collection of the costs is stayed pending appeal, as that has not been properly asserted in the moving papers.

If Plaintiff wishes to withdraw the motion as suggested, Plaintiff will be unable to refile the motion as the deadline to file such a motion is tied to the original date of entry of judgment. The Court cannot and will not “deny the motion without prejudice.”
Assuming the Plaintiff wishes to go forward, then the Court rules as follows:

The motion to tax costs is DENIED. The Court finds that the travel costs for deposition were reasonable and necessary; in light of the difficulties faced in timely filing pleadings by mail or overnight delivery due to understaffing at the Court, the Court awards the costs for filing services as reasonably and necessarily incurred; and finds that the costs to appear by CourtCall to be reasonably and necessarily incurred. It does not appear there were any overnight delivery or federal express costs as claimed by Plaintiff.

Defendant to prepare the order.