Motion to Strike/Tax Costs
(47) Tentative Ruling
Re: See Thao v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Case No. 24CECG05411
Hearing Date: July 1, 2026 (Dept. 502)
Motion: Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion to Strike/Tax Costs
If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Wednesday, July 15 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 502.
Tentative Ruling:
To grant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s motion in part. Specifically, the Court reduces the amount of costs plaintiffs are entitled to recover by $79.50.
Accordingly, plaintiffs are entitled to recover $716.90 in costs.
Explanation:
Plaintiffs, See Kong and Myko Thao (“Thao” or “plaintiffs”) filed a memorandum of costs on January 21, 2026, in the amount of $796.40. Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., (“AHM” or “defendant”) makes this motion to tax and/or strike Thao’s costs by $261.90, as follows:
(1) $11.90 for filing and motion fees, claimed under Item 1; (2) $150.00 for jury fees, claimed under Item 2; (3) $79.50 in service of process costs, claimed under Item 5; and (4) $20.50 in electronic filing/service fees, claimed under Item 14.
Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d) provides that the prevailing party in an action that arises out of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entitled to fees that were reasonably incurred:
“If the buyer prevails under this section, the buyer shall be allowed by the Court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees based on actual time expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action.”
Under Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d), the inclusion of the word “expenses” includes expenses beyond those enumerated under Code of Civil Procedure section 1035.5. (Jensen v. BMW of North America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 137-138.)
Filing Fees
AHM seeks to tax $34.40 in filing fees. These fees are comprised of “$5.95 for filing a Notice of Settlement on May 19, 2025, and $5.95 for filing a Declaration on October 23, 2025. Item 14 lists corresponding charges for electronic filing/service for $10.25 for the Notice of Settlement and $10.25 for the Declaration, respectively.” (AHM’s Moving Papers, pg. 3:12-15.)
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?”
AHM argues that Code of Civil Procedure section 1794, subdivision (d) does not apply because these “costs [were] incurred after settlement of this matter were only incurred toward recovery of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs, and not in the commencement or prosecution of the action.” (AHM’s Moving Papers, pg. 3:17-19.)
The Court disagrees with AHM’s narrow reading of Code of Civil Procedure section 1794, subdivision (d). All actions need to be resolved; all litigation must end. Under these circumstances, informing the Court that this action was coming to an end through a settlement, is part of the “prosecution of the action” as per Code of Civil Procedure section 1794, subdivision (d).
Accordingly, the Court denies AHM’s motion to tax $34.40 in filing fees.
Jury Fees
AHM seeks to strike the $150 jury fee deposit Thao made. AHM initially argued that Thao is not entitled to those fees because no jury trial occurred. (AHM’s Moving Papers, pps. 3:24-4:2.) Thao responded that the jury deposit was necessary in order to preserve Thao’s Constitutional rights to a jury. (Thao’s Opposition Papers, pg. 4:17-22.) Furthermore, jury fees themselves are recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(1).
AHM did not dispute Thao’s right to a jury trial, but for the first time on reply, argued that the jury fees could have been refundable under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.3, subdivision (a). (AHM’s Reply Papers, pg. 5:1-19.) Because AHM’s argument about the applicability of Code of Civil Procedure section 631.3, subdivision (a) was not made in AHM’s moving papers, the Court will not consider arguments (or evidence) presented for the first time in a reply. (SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. v. Five Bridges Foundation (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 549, 572 FN 18.)
Accordingly, the Court denies AHM’s motion to tax $150.00 in jury fees.
Service of Process Costs
AHM seeks to tax “$79.50 in costs to serve a deposition subpoena and witness fee letter on a third-party independent dealership. This deposition did not occur because it was unilaterally noticed without any meet and confer effort. Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence or explanation to show why it was reasonable and necessary to serve process on this entity. No representative of the dealership was deposed or testified as a witness at a trial. There was no reason to incur this cost.” (AHM’s Moving Papers, pg. 4:6- 10.) 9
Thao argues that the deposition subpoena was “not [a] random discretionary step[] but reasonable and necessary procedural action[] for the successful prosecution of this lawsuit.” (“Thao’s Opposition Papers, pg. 4:24-25.)
Under these circumstances, Thao fails to explain how serving the subpoena unilaterally, without any attempt to meet and confer as per usual in Song-Beverly litigation, was reasonable and necessary. Furthermore, Seever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557 is distinguishable where the depositions took place, but not used at trial.
Accordingly, the Court grants AHM’s motion to tax $79.50 in costs to serve a deposition subpoena and witness fee letter on a third-party independent dealership.
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: lmg on 6-29-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
10