Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. et al vs City of Campbell et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 07/29/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINES 1-2 24CV444354 Nikka Freeman et al vs MOTION TO STRIKE & DEMURRER Neil Patel et al Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 1-2 LINES 3-4 24CV445907 Jin Yin vs Hiu Yip et al MOTION: SANCTIONS

Defendant’s motion for sanctions; untimely filed supplemental opposition briefing by Plaintiff; Defendant’s request to strike Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition was considered; courts have a policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits rather than on procedural grounds. The court admonishes Plaintiffs’ counsel to comply with the court rules and procedures with respect to future filings. Defendant’s request for continuance to file and serve substantive reply is GRANTED.

Defendant shall file the supplemental consolidated sanctions submission and supporting billing records by September 18, 2026. No further response by Plaintiff. The Court will thereafter determine the appropriate sanctions, if any, and the amount thereof.

Continued to September 30, 2026 at 9:00 in Department 12.

LINE 5 25CV455853 Silicon Valley MOTION TO STRIKE &/OR TAX COSTS Taxpayers Association, Inc. et al vs Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 5 City of Campbell et al. LINE 6 25CV459137 Alexander Xue DEMURRER vs EMC Santana Row, LLC Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 6

Calendar Line 5 Case Name: Silicon Valley TaxPayers Association Inc. et al. vs City of Campbell et al. Case No.: 25CV455853

Plaintiff moves to strike or tax certain costs claimed by Defendants, the prevailing parties, including (1) a court reporter cancellation fee of $850, and (2) electronic filing fees incurred through Defendants’ selected e-filing service provider. Plaintiff contends the costs are either unnecessary or unreasonable, arguing that Defendants should have avoided the reporter cancellation charge and should have used a less expensive “self-service” e-filing option rather than a preferred e-filing vendor. Plaintiff alternatively contends any recoverable costs should be apportioned.

A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs as a matter of right unless otherwise provided by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032(b).) A verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence that the costs, amount, and necessity of the items claimed are proper. The burden then shifts to the party seeking to tax costs to show that an item is not recoverable, was not reasonably necessary, or was unreasonable in amount. (See Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.)

Court Reporter Cancellation Fee

The Court recognizes that an $850 cancellation fee is a significant expense and appreciates Plaintiff’s concern that paying that amount for a service ultimately not utilized appears wasteful. Nevertheless, the relevant inquiry is not whether the charge could have been avoided in hindsight, but whether Defendants acted reasonably when arranging for the court reporter and whether the resulting expense was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. The cost statute permits recovery of fees for court reporters obtained for trial or proceedings when otherwise recoverable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(11).) The fact that the proceeding ultimately did not require the reporter does not, standing alone, establish that the expense was unreasonable or unnecessary when incurred.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendants acted unreasonably in arranging for court reporting services or that the cancellation fee resulted from conduct that renders the cost nonrecoverable. The Court does not find that a prevailing party forfeits recovery of a reasonable litigation expense merely because circumstances later changed and the service was cancelled.

Electronic Filing Fees

The Court also declines to tax the claimed electronic filing fees. Electronic filing expenses are recoverable costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(14).) Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendants’ e-filing provider is an approved electronic filing service provider. Rather, Plaintiff argues Defendants should have selected a less expensive alternative, namely self-service efiling.

The Court is not persuaded that a prevailing party’s choice among approved e-filing methods renders the resulting expense unreasonable or requires the Court to engage in post hoc cost comparison among available filing options. Plaintiff has not shown that the fees charged were

excessive, improper, or outside the range of reasonable filing-related expenses. The cost statutes do not require a party to select the least expensive available service where the selected service is authorized and reasonably related to litigation activity.

Apportionment

The Court further declines to apportion the challenged costs. Apportionment is generally appropriate where costs are incurred for claims or parties as to which recovery is not authorized or where a particular expense cannot reasonably be attributed to recoverable litigation. Plaintiff has not established that the challenged costs relate to discrete nonrecoverable matters or that apportionment is required under the circumstances presented.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not met its burden to show that the challenged costs are improper, unnecessary, or unreasonable.

The motion to strike or tax costs is DENIED.

Defendant to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020 within 7 days of the hearing.

- oo0oo -