Motion to Tax Costs
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 6/26/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 23CV418929 Sophie Yeh vs The Motion to Sever the Cross Complaint Harker School et al Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 1 LINE 2 24CV430597 Marybeth Lakso et al Motion: Tax Cost vs Gary Lynn, MD et al Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 2 LINE 3 24CV445767 Midland Credit Motion: Set Aside Default/Judgment Management Inc. vs Gloria Martinez Good Cause Appearing, the Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Default Judgment and dismiss the instant case without prejudice is granted.
Plaintiff to prepare the final order, accompanied by the necessary Forms EFS-020, within 7 days of the date of the hearing. LINE 4 24CV445982 JPMorgan Chase Bank, OFF CALENDAR N.A. vs Fatima Luna Esquivel LINE 5 25CV465047 Discover Bank vs Motion: Summary Judgment/Adjudication Rafael Jauregui-Luna The Court has received no opposition from Defendant. “[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)
Good Cause Appearing, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.
Plaintiff to prepare the final order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020, within 7 days of the date of the hearing.
LINE 6 25CV475161 Darlene Garza et al vs Hearing: Petition Compel Arbitration Ford Motor Company et al Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 6 LINE 7 25CV478294 Viking Insurance Hearing: Demurrer Company of Wisconsin, a corporation vs Joe Off Calendar per dismissal filed 6/15/26 Bento et al
Calendar Line 2 Case Name: Marybeth Lakso v. The Estate of Gary Lynn, et al. Case No. 24CV430597
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS
Defendants are prevailing parties following entry of summary judgment and are entitled to recover allowable costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032. The Court previously found Defendants’ Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers valid. The remaining issue concerns the amount of expert witness fees recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 998(c)(1).
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?”
Expert witness fees are recoverable only to the extent they were actually incurred and reasonably necessary to the litigation. Once Plaintiff raised specific objections regarding duplication, overlap, and lack of task-level allocation, Defendants bore the burden of providing sufficient evidence to permit meaningful judicial evaluation of reasonableness and necessity.
While Defendants have submitted billing summaries and declarations, the record does not adequately distinguish (1) the allocation of expert work among overlapping experts, or (2) the extent to which expert work was tied to issues remaining in dispute following the June 6, 2025 stipulation by the co-defendant physician. The Court does not find the expert work categorically unnecessary, but the evidentiary showing is insufficient to support full recovery of the amounts claimed.
Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion under section 998(c)(1) to reduce the claimed expert witness fees as follows:
1. Orthopedic Experts (Atkin and Bray)
Plaintiff’s objections regarding causation-focused testimony and limited demonstrated necessity are well-taken in part. However, the Court does not find the services entirely outside the scope of reasonable trial preparation.
Reduction methodology: 50% reduction of combined fees.
• Claimed: $61,325.00 • Allowed: $30,662.50
2. Administrative Experts (Coleman and Lahana)
The record demonstrates substantial overlap in subject matter, materials reviewed, and deposition preparation. Defendants have not adequately distinguished the necessity of retaining two similarly situated administrative experts at full rates.
Allocation methodology:
• Allow Coleman in full (as primary expert)
• Reduce Lahana by 75% for duplication/overlap • Coleman claimed: $15,680.00 → Allowed: $15,680.00 • Lahana claimed: $37,683.00 → Allowed: $9,420.75
3. Neuropsychology Expert (Thaler)
The objection does not establish that the corrected fee is unreasonable or unnecessary on this record.
• Claimed/Corrected: $9,200.00 • Allowed: $9,200.00
4. Resulting Expert Fee Award
• Orthopedic experts: $30,662.50 • Coleman: $15,680.00 • Lahana: $9,420.75 • Thaler: $9,200.00
TOTAL ALLOWED EXPERT WITNESS FEES: $64,963.25
5. General Findings
The Court notes Defendants were not required to maintain ideal billing records, but the lack of task-level allocation materially limits the Court’s ability to fully credit the amount sought, and this uncertainty is appropriately resolved by reduction rather than denial where expert services were clearly utilized in the litigation.
The Court further notes that its ruling is grounded primarily in the statutory requirement of reasonableness under section 998(c)(1), not in any punitive or equitable adjustment. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED IN PART consistent with the reductions above and otherwise DENIED. Defendants are awarded expert witness fees in the total amount of $64,963.25, plus remaining allowable costs.
Defendant to prepare the final order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020, within 7 days of the hearing.
- oo0oo -