KATSKE VS. SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ET AL.

Petitioner Jennifer Katske moves for an order taxing the Memorandum of Costs filed by Intervenors Laura Hobbs, Deidre Holliday, Kari Chilson, Jim Burnett, and Richard Gallardo. Intervenors oppose the Motion.

The Court issued its Ruling on the First Amended Verified Complaint on March 26, 2026, sustaining the Intervenors’ Demurrer without leave to amend. Intervenors timely filed their Memorandum of Costs on April 10, 2026, seeking $3,422.17. The costs consist of $3,084.25 in filing and motion fees, and $337.92 in “Other” fees. The “Other” fees are broken down in the addendum as “costs to obtain court-fi led documents due to opposing party’s failure of service,” which include copy fees and roundtrip mileage to the courthouse.

Requests for Judicial Notice: Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of: 1) “Official Shasta County Board of Supervisors Meeting Recording April 21, 2026, Board of Supervisors Meeting,” 2) Give SendGo Fundraising Campaign “Measure B Stays on the Ballot!” 3) Lex Rex Institute Public Solicitation for Donations. The request is denied as to all three items, as they do not fall under a permissible category under Evidence Code § 452.

Merits of Motion: Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a pre vailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding. CCP § 1032(b). A prevailing pa rty includes a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered. CCP § 1032(a)(4). A Defendant includes a party who files an answer in intervention. CCP § 1032(a)(2). "An intervention takes place when a third person is permitted to become a party to an action or proceeding between other persons . . . ." (Italics ad ded.) (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (a). (7) The purpose of allowing intervention is to protect others potentially affected by a judgment, thus obviating delay and multiplicity of suits. (People v. Superior Court (Good) (1976) 17 Cal.3d 732, 736; County of San Bernardino v. Harsh California Corp. (1959) 52 Cal.2d 341, 346.) The intervenor becomes a party to the action, with al l of the same procedural rights and remedies of the original parties.” Catello v. I.T.T. General Controls (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1013-1014. Here, the Court granted the Intervenors’ Application fo r Leave to Intervene on March 5, 2026. Under the law, these Intervenors are Defendants in whose favor a dismissal was entered on March 26, 2026. Therefore, Intervenors are prevailing parties entitled to recover their costs.

Plaintiff challenges the entire Memorandum of Costs. Interventors ’ Memorandum of Costs lists the following costs: Item 1: $3,084.25 in filing and motion fees, and Item 15: $337.92 in “Other” costs. The “Other” costs are broken down in the addendum as “costs to obtain court-filed documents due t o opposing party’s failure of service,” which include copy fees and roundtrip mileage to the courthous e. Item 1, filing and motion fees, are expressly allowable under CCP § 1033.5(a)(1).

Regarding Item 15, “if an expense is neither expressly allowable under subdivision (a) nor expressly prohibited under subdivision (b), it may nevertheless be recovered if, in the court's discretion, it is "reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation." Science Applications Internat. Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1103. Intervenors argue that the copying and retrieval fees are warranted because Plaintiff did not serve the Interveno rs the First Amended Petition and supporting papers, which required them to obtain them from the court independently. (Decl. Haberbush ¶ 6.) The First Amended Petition was filed on March 2, 2026. Intervenors were not granted leave to intervene until March 5, 2026. Plaintiff therefore had no obligation to serve the Intervenors prior to their intervention in the case. By the time of the March 5, 2026, hearing, Intervenors had obtained the filings of their own accord and were ordered to file their response in intervention that same day. Based on th e timeline of events, these costs which were incurred prior to intervention, were not necessary to the conduct of the litiga tion, but rather convenient or beneficial to its preparation. Therefore, the Court will tax costs as to Item 15, only. 5

The Motion is GRANTED, in part. Costs are reduced by $337.92. Intervenors are entitled to recover $3,084.25 in costs. Petitioner is to prepare the proposed order.