Ark v. VW

(Van Nuys Courthouse East: Dept. T) May 18, 2026 LASC - Tentative Rulings Main Content --> Online Services Tentative Rulings Text-to-Speech Play Reset DEPARTMENT T LAW AND MOTION RULINGS If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER: Defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi Calabasas? Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED except it is GRANTED as to Items 9 and 16 so that the total amount of $752.94 is taxed.

Introduction

Defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi Calabasas (collectively, Defendants) moved to tax Plaintiffs Satveer Singh Ark and Sukhninder Kaur Ark’s (collectively, Plaintiffs) Memorandum of Costs (Cost Memo) filed by Attorney Richard Wirtz of Wirtz Law APC. The Cost Memo filed by Attorney Norman Taylor of Norman Taylor & Associates is not at issue. Defendants requested that the Cost Memo be stricken in its entirety or taxed in the total amount of $899.74 from Item nos. 1, 4, 5, 9, 14, and 16.

Discussion

As to Item 1? Filing Fees, Defendants asserted that the $60.00 filing fee is unsubstantiated as to which motion was filed. However, as submitted by both parties, a Motion for Attorneys? Fees was to be and/or was filed on February 26, 2026. The Court record reflects the motion being filed. The arguments against Item 1 are unpersuasive since the filing fee has been substantiated by the filing of the Attorneys? Fees motion. The motion to tax costs as to Item 1 is DENIED.

As to Item 4? Deposition Costs, Defendants assert that the $2,481.15 in costs were not substantiated. However, with the Opposition, Plaintiffs submitted the receipts for the deposition costs. The verified Cost Memo is sufficient to establish the moving party’s initial burden on costs. (Hadley v. Repel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.) Once the opposing party disputes the alleged costs, the burden returns to the moving party to submit supportive documents. (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1263.) With Defendants’ dispute over the cost items, Plaintiffs were to submit supportive documentation for the cost items.

Plaintiff sufficiently submitted the invoices to support the cost demands. The motion to tax costs as to Item 4 is DENIED.

As to Item 5? Service of Process costs of $490.00, Defendants again asserted that the cost item is unsubstantiated. Plaintiffs submitted the invoices for the service of process of the deposition subpoenas. The motion is not persuasive as to Item 5. The motion to tax Item 5 is DENIED.

Item 9 of the Cost Memo sought court-ordered transcripts costs of $625.00. Defendants asserted that no supportive documents were submitted either with the Cost Memo or Plaintiffs? Opposition. However, Plaintiffs assert that the cost is an anticipated cost for a court reporter to attend the May 18, 2026, hearing on the motion for attorneys’ fees. However, the anticipated cost for the court reporter at a future hearing is not proper as a cost item, specifically because the court does not anticipate ordering transcripts of the attorneys’ fees hearing. It is not the Court’s procedure to order transcripts from a fee motion. Plaintiffs’ request for anticipated court ordered transcripts is unpersuasive. The motion is persuasive as to Item 9. The motion to tax Item 9 ($625.00) is GRANTED.

Defendants argued that the costs in Item 14 - electronic filing or service costs of $771.81 were not substantiated. The invoices were not required to be submitted with the Cost Memo. However, with Defendants’ dispute of the cost item, Plaintiffs are required to submit the invoices for the cost, which Plaintiffs’ have done. The arguments in the motion are not persuasive. The motion to tax Item 14 is DENIED.

Item 16 “other’ costs of $127.94 included $120 for a courtesy copy of the attorneys’ fees motion delivered to the Court, $6.20 to download a minute order, and $1.74 for research on Westlaw. However, none of these costs are statutorily approved costs and the Court does not find these costs to be reasonably necessary in the litigation of this action. The Court notes that courtesy copies of motions are not required or requested in Department T. Defendants’ arguments are persuasive. The motion to tax Item 16 ($127.94) is GRANTED.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER: Plaintiffs Satveer Singh Ark and Sukhninder Kaur Ark’s Motion for Attorneys? Fees is GRANTED at a reduced and total amount of $26,538.00. Norman Taylor & Associates is awarded $12,978.00. Wirtz Law APC is awarded $13,560.00. Plaintiffs Satveer Singh Ark and Sukhninder Kaur Ark’s Evidentiary Objections are OVERRULED.