Motion to Strike or Tax Costs
34-2020-00278366-CU-BC-GDS: Temblor Petroleum Company, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company vs. California Energy Exchange Corporation 01/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike or Tax Costs in Department 23
Tentative Ruling
NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED
Defendants/Cross-Complainants California Energy Exchange Corporation, California Gas Gathering, and Energy Operations Managements (CEE et al.) motion to strike or tax Cross- Defendant/Cross-Complainant Rock Creek Oil, Inc.s (Rock Creek) memorandum of costs is DENIED as follows.
This motion concerns only CEE et al. and Rock Creek. Accordingly, the procedural history will be limited to these parties. On July 31, 2020, CEE filed a cross-complaint against, inter alia, Rock Creek. On January 16, 2024, Rock Creek filed a cross-complaint against CEE et al. This action proceeded to trial on April 28, 2025. On September 17, 2025, the Court issued its Final Statement of Decision. As to the Parties to this motion, the Court found none of the Parties established by a preponderance of the evidence any of their claims against each other. (Final Statement of Decision at 18:13-17.) On September 24, 2025, Rock Creek filed a memorandum of costs, claiming costs in the amount of $5,196.35. The Court entered judgment in this action on October 17, 2025.
CEE et al. move to strike or tax Defendants cost memorandum on the grounds: (1) the memorandum was prematurely filed; and (2) Rock Creek is not a prevailing party and is therefore not entitled to costs. CEE et al. do not challenge any of the individual cost items Rock Creek claimed in their moving papers. In their reply, CEE et al. argue Rock Creeks costs are being inflated, and are unreasonable, but do not attack any particular cost item. (Reply 6:27- 7:4.) Courts have held that "conclusory challenge[s]" to the reasonableness of costs are insufficient to shift the burden to the party seeking to recover the costs. "[M]ere statements in the points and authorities accompanying its notice of motion to strike cost bill and the declaration of its counsel are insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing [that costs were necessarily incurred]." (Jones v.
Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266.) Accordingly, if the Court rejects both of CEE et al.s arguments, then Rock Creek will be entitled to the full amount of costs claimed. (Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774
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?”
The Court rejects CEEs first argument that the memorandum must be stricken or taxed as untimely. In Haley v. Casa Del Rey Homeowners Assn. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 863, 880, the Court observed that time limitations pertaining to a memorandum of costs are not jurisdictional . . . [r]ather, courts treat prematurely filed costs bills as being timely filed. Accordingly, the Court will treat Rock Creeks prematurely filed cost memorandum as timely filed.
34-2020-00278366-CU-BC-GDS: Temblor Petroleum Company, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company vs. California Energy Exchange Corporation 01/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike or Tax Costs in Department 23
The Court also rejects CEEs prevailing party arguments. McClarand, Vasquez & Partners, Inc. v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (McClarand) (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1450 is instructive to the Courts determination of this issue. In McClarand, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant and the defendant filed a cross-complaint against the plaintiff. (Id. at 1452-1453.) A jury trial resulted in a verdict denying relief to both parties. (Id. at 1453.) Both parties filed a memorandum of costs seeking costs against the other but the trial court awarded only the defendants costs. (Ibid.)
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial courts decision, reasoning that there could only be one prevailing party between the parties. (Id. at 1454.) The Court further reasoned based on Schrader v. Neville (1949) 34 Cal.2d 112 that the defendant was the prevailing party because had the plaintiff not commenced the litigation by filing their complaint, the defendant would not have been compelled to file a cross-complaint against the plaintiff. (Id. at 1455.) Similarly here, had CEE not brought Rock Creek into this action by filing their crosscomplaint, Rock Creek would not have been compelled to file its cross-complaint.
Accordingly, the Court finds Rock Creek is the prevailing party as between it and CEE under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(a)(4) as a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief.
On reply, CEE et al. argue that this matter must be stayed in its entirety pending CEEs appeal of the judgment filed on January 15, 2026. Their position is incorrect. The trial court retains jurisdiction to award costs and rule on a motion to tax costs after rendition and entry of final judgment and a perfected appeal. (See Hennessy v. Superior Court (1924) 194 Cal. 368, 371-374; see also Krikorian Premiere Theatres, LLC v. Westminster Central, LLC (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1080 [observing that cost proceedings are ancillary to the particular judgment in the securing of which such costs have been incurred.].)
Having rejected all of CEE et al.s grounds for this motion, CEE et al.s motion is DENIED. Rock Creek is awarded costs in the amount of $5,196.35 from CEE. Rock Creek shall prepare a proposed amended judgment for the Courts signature.
To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 23 at 916-874-5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)
Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date.
If oral argument is requested, the parties may and are encouraged to appear by Zoom with the links below:
To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept23
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2020-00278366-CU-BC-GDS: Temblor Petroleum Company, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company vs. California Energy Exchange Corporation 01/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike or Tax Costs in Department 23
To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16108301121
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.
If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or notice is necessary.