Serna v. Ford

TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR July 14, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.

You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).

If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.

If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.

You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE

RULING.

Serna v. Ford

On February 23, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum of Costs, seeking costs of $2,817.33. Before

the Court is Ford’s motion to tax costs of $2,071.33 in the following categories: (1) Court reporter fees of

$1,847.19; and (2) “Other” of $224.14. Plaintiff opposes. GM replies.

ANALYSIS

Court Reporter Fees. Ford seeks to tax $1,847.19 related to court reporter fees. It argues the

Memorandum of Costs states it was for “US Legal Support on 9/29/25,” but no exhibit is attached to any

of Plaintiffs’ served documents showing an invoice or receipt for the court reporter. It argues the amount

is unreasonable or unnecessary because it appears to be related to court reporter costs for Plaintiffs’

deposition taken by Defendant. It argues that it paid for its own court reporter. It asserts that it is unclear

why this is included under its own item and not under “Deposition costs.”

Plaintiffs argue that their counsel paid for deposition transcripts for both Plaintiffs. They assert

that Ford cannot object to the amount given Ford chose the court reporter company and paid a similar

amount. It argues that under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(3)(A), costs are

allowed for “transcribing necessary depositions including ... one copy of depositions taken by the party

against whom costs are allowed.” They also argue that these costs are permitted under the broader

framework of “expenses” permitted under Song-Beverly. They attach an invoice in support. (Swanson

Decl. Exh. A.)

On reply, Ford argues the amount sought for Plaintiffs’ deposition transcripts should be struck. It

asserts that the invoice attached to the Hearing Reporters section of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 only lists Melissa

Anatasia Serna, rather than both Plaintiffs.

It is unclear what Ford is talking about because the invoice shows certified copies of transcripts for

both Plaintiffs were sought.

Ford also argues that the amount on the invoice includes the list of exhibits used at the depositions.

It contends that Plaintiffs had the exhibits before obtaining the depositions and only needed the transcript

itself. Therefore, it argues, the deposition cost was unreasonable and unnecessary.

The Court denies the motion as to Court Reporter costs. Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5,

subdivision (a)(3)(A), provides for recovery of the cost of transcribing necessary depositions, including

one copy of depositions taken by the party against whom costs are allowed. Ford’s argument about

exhibits does not render the expenses unnecessary or unreasonable. Plaintiffs are entitled to one copy of

depositions taken by Ford, which include exhibits.

Other. Ford also takes issue with $224.14 sought for “Attorney Services and Messenger Court

Filings and Service.” It argues that it is unclear what attorney services cost $224.14, and without any

invoices, correspondence, or further breakdown, the fees are not demonstrated to be necessary or

reasonable. It argues that Plaintiffs should have provided an exhibit in support.

Plaintiff argues that these fees are related to filing court documents, such as the complaint, case

management conference statement, motion documents, notices, as well as service of courtesy copies for

Plaintiff’s discovery motion.

On reply, Ford states the invoices provided are helpful. It asserts that it originally questioned

whether the costs were duplicative of filing fees. It contends that Plaintiffs’ further documentation is not

enough to demonstrate why this category is separate from filing fees and what makes the costs not

included in the court costs for the original filing.

To the extent the fees are related to electronic filing, they are not filing fees. Instead, they are

separately recoverable as “fees for electronic filing or service of documents through an electronic filing

service provider,” given the Court requires electronic filing and service. (Code Civ. Proc., §

1033.5(a)(14).) This is separate from “[f]iling, motion, and jury fees” provided for under section

1033.5(a)(1), which is related to the fees the Court charges; hence the reason they are not included as part

of filing fees.

Nonetheless, the Court tax costs of $91.00 related to Plaintiffs providing “courtesy copies”

because these amounts are not demonstrated to be reasonable or necessary.

RULING

For all the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant

Ford’s motion to tax costs. Tax costs in the total amount of $91.00, which is comprised of costs related to

delivery of courtesy copies to the Court; deny the motion as to all other costs at issue.