Ramiro C. Ortega Uraje v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

DEPARTMENT S27 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Facts Plaintiff, Ramiro C. Ortega Uraje filed this action against Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. for Song-Beverly violations and related claims. The parties settled the case, but did not agree on an amount of attorneys’ fees and costs; the parties’ settlement agreement, in this regard, states that Defendant will pay “Plaintiff’s statutory costs and expenses’including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in an amount determined by stipulation or by the Court to have been reasonably incurred by Plaintiff in connection with the commencement and prosecution of this action.”

2. Motion for Attorneys? Fees and Costs The Court was originally scheduled to hear this motion on 4/07/26. The Court continued the hearing on the motion and ordered the parties to meet and confer and file supplemental briefs concerning any outstanding issues. The parties did so. It appears all issues relating to fees have been resolved, leaving only issues relating to costs for resolution by the Court.

Defendant indicates that, because it agreed to pay costs in the parties’ settlement agreement, it withdraws its argument that costs should not be awarded due to Plaintiff’s failure to file a memorandum of costs. It argues, however, that costs should be taxed because: · Plaintiff did not file a worksheet in support of the request for costs. o The worksheet is an aspect of the memorandum of costs. If Defendant is conceding that a memorandum of costs is not necessary, it is unclear why a worksheet would be necessary. The request for costs was made by way of noticed motion with an attorney declaration and documentary evidence, which seems to subsume the need for a worksheet.

· Plaintiff’s activities export shows all costs remain “unbilled.” o Defendant cites nothing to stand for the position that a cost must be billed to the client, as opposed to merely incurred by the attorney, to be compensable. The Court knows of no such authority.

· The list of subpoenas is not itemized. o The invoices, however, were included with the original moving papers, so Defendant clearly knows the nature of the subpoenas. Defendant does not contend the subpoenas were otherwise improper.

· Veritext deposition costs are improper. o Plaintiff concedes this in opposition and withdraws $485.90 from his request for costs. It is unclear why the parties, who met and conferred at length and resolved various issues, were unable to resolve this issue without the need for a court order.

· Costs billed by the Castruita Law Firm could not be verified by Mr. Jacobson, who is employed by Quill & Arrow o Plaintiff does not address this issue in opposition to the motion. The parties must further meet and confer to obtain any necessary evidence in support of the request for costs.