Motion to strike or tax Plaintiff’s costs
TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR June 22, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.
You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).
If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.
If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.
You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE
RULING.
TORRES v. HONDA
TENTATIVE RULING(S):
On January 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs seeking costs of $1,739.92. Before
the Court is Defendant Honda’s motion to strike or tax Plaintiff’s costs. The issue has been fully
briefed.
Analysis
Honda argues that Plaintiff’s entire Memorandum of Costs should be stricken because
Plaintiff did not include any receipts or other evidence in support of the Memorandum of Costs.
Honda seeks to tax the following individual costs: (1) $837.42 in motion filing fees because
Plaintiff did not provide receipts and $72.00 is included in the amount for remote appearance
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
fees that are not recoverable; (2) the $150.00 jury fees posted by Plaintiff because no trial
occurred; and (3) $722.50 in deposition costs because Plaintiff did not provide receipts or
invoices showing the costs were incurred.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that there is no requirement that copies of bills or invoices
accompany a Memorandum of Costs. Such documentation is only required if the costs are put at
issue by a motion to tax. (Jones v. Dumrichob, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1266.) Plaintiff is
correct on the law and Honda’s request to strike the entirety of Plaintiff’s memorandum is denied.
Plaintiff further argues that all costs claimed were necessary to the litigation and provides a
declaration with invoices showing the amounts of the fees and costs incurred. Plaintiff argues
that Honda has failed to meet its burden to show that any of the fees or costs are unreasonable
or unnecessary.
On reply, Honda argues that Plaintiff does not establish that the $72.00 paid to remotely
appear at a hearing is recoverable as a filing or motion fee. Further, Honda argues for the first
time a $65.00 priority filing fee should be taxed because Plaintiff did not establish the
reasonableness of the cost. Finally, Honda asserts that the $150.00 jury fee paid by Plaintiff
should be taxed because the fees were not used for food and lodging of the jury under Code of
Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (2) and because the is refundable from the Court
because the trial did not occur.
Based on the above, the Court tax $150.00 Plaintiff paid in jury fees. As Honda correctly
asserts, the jury fees paid by Plaintiff were refundable under Code of Civil Procedure section
631.3, subdivision (a), upon settlement of the litigation. As such, the fees are not reasonable or
necessarily given that the matter did not proceed to trial and Plaintiff was able to recover the
fees.
As to the remaining fees, if a buyer prevails on a Beverely-Song claim he is entitled to
recover costs and expenses. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).) “Expenses” under the statute allow
a buyer to recover items not recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5’s
definition of costs. (Warren v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 42.)
Nonetheless, the recoverable cost or expense must be reasonably incurred in connection with
the commencement or prosecution of the action. (Civ. Code, §1794, subd. (d); Jensen v. BMW
of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 138.) Plaintiffs’ remote appearance fee and
priority filing fee were incurred in the prosecution of this action and Honda has not shown that
they were unreasonable or unnecessary.
Thus, the Court grants Honda’s motion to tax costs in the amount of $150.00 reflecting
the refundable jury fees paid by Plaintiffs.
RULING
For all the reasons stated above, the Court Grants Defendant American Honda Motor
Company, Inc.’s motion to tax costs in part and denied in part. The Court tax $150.00 from
Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs.