Case Number: BC494657 Hearing Date: May 21, 2014 Dept: 46

TENTATIVE RULING. Motion is GRANTED in part. Costs are taxed in the sum of $4,811.73 as detailed below. The motion is otherwise denied.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant is the prevailing party as defined by CCP § 1032(b)(4) as the matter was resolved by a judgment entered on 2/5/2014 after the matter was determined by summary judgment motion in favor of defendants.

The right to recover costs is triggered by the filing of a timely memorandum of costs.
Cal Rules of Court 3.1700. The cost bill was timely filed on 2/20/2014, within 15 days of the entry of judgment.

Unless otherwise provided by statute, a “prevailing party” is entitled to recover costs in any action or proceeding “as a matter of right.” (§ 1032, subd. (b); see § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(A)–(C) [allowable costs under § 1032 include attorney fees authorized by contract, statute, or law].) Goodman v. Lozano (2010) 47 Cal. 4th 1327.

Foothill-De Anza Community College Dist. v. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal. App. 4th 11, at page 29 held:
In ruling upon a motion to tax costs, the trial court’s first determination is whether the statute expressly allows the particular item and whether it appears proper on its face. “If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show [the costs] to be unnecessary or unreasonable.” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131 [84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 753].) Where costs are not expressly allowed by the statute, the burden is on the party claiming the costs to show that the charges were reasonable and necessary. (Id. at p. 132.) “Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 [23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 810].)

Items 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, and 1.g are all filing and motion fees. These are expressly permitted by CCP 1033.5(a)(1) and are allowed.

Items 4.a, 4.b, 4.c, 4.d, 4.e (re Burke, Gordillo, Verduzco, Estis, Alexis, and Kargozar) deposition transcripts (even though they were referred to vaguely under the category of deposition charges.) The invoices attached to the declaration of counsel Massoumi (Exhibits D & G) all document the charges made for deposition transcripts except for the non-appearance fee for the deposition of Soccoro de la Cruz which is $315.45 (Massoumi Exhibits D, page 2), not $327.90 as stated in the Memorandum of Costs. Thus the costs are taxed $12.45. These costs are allowed by CCP 1033.5(a)3 and include the transcripts and video recording, the non-appearance fees for the Plaintiff’s deposition are reasonable and necessary as the deposition was noticed and then Plaintiff did not appear, as further referenced in the court’s minute order of 07/17/2013.

Travel costs relating to the depositions referred as related to items 4.a, 4.b, 4.c, 4.d, 4.e (re Burke, Gordillo, Verduzco, Estis, Alexis, and Kargozar) are partially taxed as follows: Gordillo –reduce to $101.70 from $124.31, Estis – reduce to $96.90 from $121.72, Verduzco – reduce to $86.90 from $148.65 based upon the supporting documentation showing different amounts – Exhibit H. Total costs are reduced – taxed – in the sum of $148.65. The remaining costs are permitted costs pursuant to CCP 1033.5(a)(3).

Service of Process charges, including for a non-party witness, are all permitted costs under CCP 1033.5(a)(4).

Medical records charges include photocopying charges of $1,634.53 which are specifically disallowed under CCP 1033.5(b)(3). They are therefore taxed.

Interpreter costs are permitted only on a showing that a party is indigent as defined by statute. Defendant has not made that showing and as such the interpreter costs of $$2,426.10 are taxed.
Mediation expenses related to a court-ordered mediation, as in this case, are permitted pursuant to Gibson v. Bobroff (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1202.