WONG, et al. vs SOLNORDAL, et al.

25CV139673: WONG, et al. vs SOLNORDAL, et al. 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs in Department 1

Tentative Ruling - 06/16/2026 Michael Markman

The Motion to Tax Costs filed by Thomas Wong, Jennifer Kavouniaris on 02/24/2026 is Granted in Part.

BACKGROUND

Petitioners/Plaintiffs Thomas Wong and Jennifer Kavouniaris filed this verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint against Respondents/Defendants the Alameda County Republican Central Committee (ACRCC), the California Republican Party (CAGOP), Jeanne Solnordal, Stephanie Szto, Jackie Cota, Utkarsh Jain, Drew Mercy, and Jason Clark, challenging their automatic removal from the ACRCC. The ACRCC is a county political party affiliated with the CAGOP and the national Republican Party. The individual respondents serve in various leadership roles at the ACRCC and CAGOP.

Respondents prevailed on a demurrer to all cause of action and prevailed in part on their special motion to strike the petition/complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). (See Order, entered Jan. 27, 2026.) Judgment was entered on February 6, 2026.

Respondents filed a memorandum of costs, claiming $4,345.24: $4,138.55 in filing and motion fees; $133.30 in fees for electronic filing or service; and $73.39 in other costs. Petitioners move to strike portions of the claimed costs.

LEGAL STANDARD

A prevailing party is entitled to costs as a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (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.” (Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 211, 222.)

DISCUSSION

Respondents claim $4,138.55 in filing and motion fees, submitting Swift Legal invoices with the 25CV139673: WONG, et al. vs SOLNORDAL, et al. 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs in Department 1 opposition brief. Respondent explains that each of them incurred a $435 “first appearance” fee and that there were also smaller fees for e-filing, Electronic Filing Manager (EFM), and payment processing. The court takes judicial notice of the Statewide Civil Fee Schedule available at https://www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/system/files/forms-and-filings/statewide-civil-fee-scheduleeff-01012026.pdf. (See Evid.

Code, subds. (d) & (h).) A “first paper filed by each party other than plaintiff” incurs a $435 fee. Government Code section 70612, which is the statutory source of the fee, sets a “uniform fee” for filing the first paper in a civil action “on behalf of any defendant, intervenor, respondent, or adverse party, whether separately or jointly.” (Gov’t Code, § 70612.) The Court of Appeal construed this language (in a prior version of the statute) “to require that each of several defendants shall pay a filing fee in the amount stated, regardless of whether they decide to join with other defendants in a responsive pleading.” (Townzen v.

Cnty. of El Dorado (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.) Respondents submitted evidence that the fee was paid on behalf of each Respondent. (Columbo Decl., Ex. C.) These filing costs, therefore, are proper under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(1) & (a)(14), and Petitioners have shown that they are unnecessary or improper.

Respondents contend that the $133.30 claimed for “fees for electronic filing or service” not captured in the claim for $4,138.55 are also recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(14). Respondents did not provide any supporting documentation or explanation for the fees. Given amount in filing and e-filing fees already claimed, these costs are facially improper, and Respondents have not met their burden to prove that these costs were properly incurred.

Respondents have withdrawn the claim for $73.39 in postage and photocopying costs.

ORDER

Respondents’ motion to tax costs is GRANTED IN PART. Respondents’ costs are taxed $206.69.