By Plaintiff to Tax Costs
(20) Tentative Ruling
Re: Sanchez v. General Motors LLC Superior Court Case No. 24CECG04136
Hearing Date: June 30, 2026 (Dept. 501)
Motion: By Plaintiff to Tax Costs
Tentative Ruling:
To grant in part and tax costs in the sum of $95.90, reducing defendant General Motors LLC’s (“GM”) recoverable costs to $935. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b), Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5.)
Explanation:
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (b), “a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any proceeding.”
The losing party may dispute any or all of the items in the prevailing party's costs memorandum by a motion to strike or tax costs. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b).)
If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand, 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. (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.)
Both parties are frustratingly vague and sloppy in their filings in connection with this motion. Defendant GM filed a Memorandum of Costs that does not include the worksheet, and neither party includes the worksheet with their filings, making it more difficult and time-consuming to evaluate this motion than it should be. And GM’s memorandum of costs places items of costs in the wrong categories. GM does not dispute that its costs are in the wrong categories, but doesn’t acknowledge it either. Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs does not comply with Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(2), which provides that “the motion to strike or tax costs must refer to each item objected to by the same number and appear in the same order as the corresponding cost item claimed on the memorandum of costs and must state why the item is objectionable.” (Emphasis added.)
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?”
Plaintiff’s notice of motion never specifies what items or in what amount he seeks to tax GM’s costs. The motion (including the points and authorities) never identifies any specific item numbers.
If the items on their face appear to be proper charges, the verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary. (Ladas v. California State Automobile Ass'n (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774-776; Bender v. County of Los Angeles 6
(2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 968; Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266 [mere statements in points and authorities and declaration of counsel insufficient to rebut prima facie showing].)
Since GM did not include the Memorandum of Costs Worksheet, none of the items on their face appear to the court to be proper charges, especially not the $935 for “Other.” Accordingly GM has the burden to justify each item of costs.
GM incorrectly included first appearance ($435) and summary judgment motion ($500) filing fees in the “Other” category. They should have been included in item 1 Filing and motion fees. The extraordinary ambiguity of GM’s Memorandum of Costs is what resulted in this motion to tax. Plaintiff essentially argues that GM cannot recover allowable costs (such as filing and motion fees) that are included in the wrong section of the Memorandum of Costs, but cites to no authority for this proposition. Plaintiff does not dispute that the $935 in filing and motion fees are not recoverable by statute. Clearly they are. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(1).) They will be allowed, despite GM’s failure to properly fill out the Memorandum of Costs.
GM in its opposition never clearly states what the $52 is for that is claimed in item 1. Though the $52 is included in Filing and motion fees, GM does not substantiate this cost in its opposition section addressing motion filing fees. Accordingly the court will grant the motion to tax $52.
The last item is $43.90 in Item 14 Fees for electronic filing or service. The declaration filed with the opposition provides a number of invoices, but it is not clear to the court what is supposed to comprise the $43.90, and the opposition offers no clarification or explanation. This item is taxed as well.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: KCK on 06/29/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
7