Xia vs. Placentia Yorba Linda Unified School District

20-01128098 Preliminarily, Defendant concedes, in his Opposition, that the following items should be stricken from the Memorandum of Cost: Item 57: Duplicative Jacobson invoice entry $16,418.85 Item 64: Jacobson trial prop/review encompassed within Item 80 $4,060.00 Items 7, 12, 43, 44, 45, 47, 53, 54, 55, 60, 62, 63, 66, 69, 70, 72, and 73 for court parking charges and mileage for $174.00.

According to Defendant these items total $20,616.85

A prevailing party is usually entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding. (Civ. Proc. Code § 1032, subd. (b).) If the items on a verified memorandum of costs appear to be proper charges, the memorandum is prima facie evidence of their propriety and the burden is on the party contesting them to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. (Foothill-De Anza Comm. College Dist. v. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 29; Wagner Farms, Inc. v. Modesto Irrigation Dist. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 765, 773-74.)

The party challenging costs does not meet this burden by arguing that the costs were not necessary or reasonable, but must present evidence and prove that the costs are not recoverable. (Seever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557; see also Wagner Farms, 145 Cal.App.4th at 777-78.) If the claimed items are not expressly allowed by statute and are objected to by a motion to strike or tax costs, the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs to show that the charges were reasonable and necessary. (Foothill-De Anza Comm.

College Dist., 158 Cal.App.4th at 29.) Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation is a question of fact for the court to determine. (Id. at 29-30.)

Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant Cenk Acar and against Plaintiffs The Lab, LLC and HSB Investments & Consulting, LLC on all causes of action. (See ROA 448 [Judgment].) Plaintiffs shall take nothing by way of their complaint. (Id.) Defendant is the prevailing party.