Cassandra Flores v. FCA US, LLC

Cassandra Flores v. FCA US, LLC

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and/or Tax Defendant’s Fees and Costs

Hearing Date: June 12, 2026

The motion of Plaintiff Cassandra Flores (“Plaintiff”) to strike or tax the costs of Defendant FCA US, LLC (“Defendant”) is DENIED.

Legal Standard.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a) lists the items allowable as costs under section 1032.10. “An award of costs shall be subject to the following: [¶] (1) Costs are allowable if incurred, whether or not paid. [¶] (2) Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation. [¶] (3) Allowable costs shall be reasonable in amount. [¶] (4) Items not mentioned in this section and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court’s discretion.” [Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, subd. (c).] The losing party may file a motion to dispute any or all items in the prevailing party’s costs memorandum through a motion to strike or tax costs. [Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1700, subd. (b).]

If the items appearing on a cost bill are proper charges, they are prima facie evidence that the cost, expense, or service listed was necessarily incurred. [Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Service, Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 256, 266.] The burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary. [Ladas v. Cal. State Automobile Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.] However, “if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue, and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.” [Ibid.] 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. [Bender v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 968, 989.]

Discussion.

After successfully moving to dismiss this action, Defendant obtained a judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. In part, the judgment filed on February 3, 2026, states that Defendant, as the prevailing party, “is entitled to costs to be claimed by memorandum of costs permitted by Code of Civil Procedure § 1032 et seq.” [Judgment at 2:14-16.]

On February 18, 2026, Defendant filed its Memorandum of Costs and seeks $1,784.20 from Plaintiff. [Exh. A to Waldon Decl.] Now, Plaintiff moves to strike those costs and argues that Defendant has not met its burden of showing that the filing and motion fees of $1,632.70

and “other” fees of $151.50 are reasonable and necessary. [See Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5.] Defendant opposed the motion, and Plaintiff did not file a reply.

1. Filing and Motion Fees.

Filing and motion fees are allowable costs. [Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1032, 1033.5, subds. (a)(1) and (14).] Plaintiff requests to tax those defense costs. The motion is DENIED. Defendant, in its Memorandum of Costs, lists each paper filed and the associated fee. [Exh. A to Waldon Decl. at Item 1 and the attached Worksheet at Item 1(a)-(g).] Defendant also attached invoices verifying each filing fee and expense incurred. [Exh. C to Waldon Decl.] Plaintiff did not contest a specific cost amount. Defendant has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that each filing-related cost or expense was incurred, reasonable, and necessary.

2. Other Costs.

Defendant requests $151.50 for out-of-town mileage expenses to attend the Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”). [Exh. A to Waldon Decl. at Item 15.] Plaintiff’s motion to strike or tax this cost is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 does not expressly permit recovery of travel expenses as described by Defendant. [See Ladas, 19 Cal.App.4th at 775-776 (While the statute allows recovery of travel expenses for depositions, “routine expenses for local travel by attorneys or other firm employees are not reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation.”).] Therefore, “if an expense is neither explicitly permitted under subdivision (a) nor explicitly prohibited under subdivision (b) [of section 1033.5], it can still be recovered if the court, in its discretion, finds it reasonably necessary for the conduct of the litigation rather than just convenient or beneficial for its preparation.” [Science Applications Internat. Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1103 (internal quotes and citations omitted).]

Defense counsel, based at a San Francisco law firm, appeared in person at the MSC. Considering the travel distance, this expense exceeds typical local travel costs. Additionally, the Court mandated that all individuals with settlement authority attend in person at the MSC. [Super. Ct. Monterey County, Local Rules, rule 6.13, subd. B.] Since this travel expense is reasonably necessary for litigation, and not merely “routine local travel,” the motion is DENIED.

Conclusion.

Plaintiff’s motion to tax or strike Defendant’s costs is DENIED in full. Defendant shall prepare the Proposed Order and Amended Proposed Judgment consistent with this Tentative Ruling.

NOTE RE TENTATIVE RULING

This tentative ruling becomes the court’s order, and no hearing shall be held unless one of the parties contests it by following Rule 3.1308 of the California Rules of Court and Monterey

County Local Rule 7.9. Those parties wishing to present an oral argument must notify all other parties and the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing; otherwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED, AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE HEARING VACATED. You must notify the court by email or by calling the Calendar Department at 831-647-5800, extension 3040, before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.

3