Kristine Bustos v. Shanntal Collette Arenas

On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. However, because the right to costs is governed strictly by statute a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized." (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774, internal citations omitted.)

"The court's first determination, therefore, is whether the statute expressly allows the item, and whether it appears proper on its face. If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show them to be unnecessary or unreasonable." (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131, internal citations omitted.)

The objecting party does not meet this burden by arguing the costs were not necessary or reasonable but must present evidence and prove the costs are not recoverable. (Litt v Med. Ctr. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1224; Seever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557.)

Defendant cannot seek attorney fees by way of a cost memorandum. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(b) [unless otherwise provided by statute, a noticed motion is required to claim attorney fees]; Hardie v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 714, 720 [same].) Defendant does not provide the Court with any statutory nor case law authority otherwise.

Accordingly, the Court strikes $116,403.55 in attorney fees from the memorandum of costs without prejudice to Defendant seeking such via a noticed motion. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the other costs Defendant seeks are proper on their face. As Plaintiffs make no showing those costs are unnecessary or unreasonable, the motion to strike or tax is otherwise denied. Plaintiffs are to give notice of the Court's ruling and to file proof of service of same.

DEPARTMENT | 39 | HEARING DATE | August 18, 2026 | CASE NUMBER |

| MOTION | Motion to Compel Discovery Responses |

MOVING PARTY | Plaintiff Kristine Bustos | OPPOSING PARTY | None | MOTIONS Plaintiff Kristine Bustos ("Plaintiff") moves to compel responses from Defendant Shanntal Collette Arenas ("Defendant") to Form Interrogatories, set one ("FROG"), Special Interrogatories, set one ("SROG"), and Requests for Production, set one ("RPD"). Plaintiff also moves to deem admitted matters specified in Requests for Admissions, set one ("RFA"). Defendant has not opposed the motion.

ANALYSIS Plaintiff served the FROG, SROG, RPD, and RFA on Defendant on February 12, 2026 by email. Defendant's responses were thus due by March 17, 2026. As of the filing date of this motion, Defendant had not responded to the discovery.

Accordingly, the motion to compel responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD is granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses to Plaintiff's FROG, SROG, and RPD without objections, within 30 days of service of this order.

When a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for an order the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted and for a monetary sanction. (Code of Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280, subd. (b).) The Court "shall" grant a motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admissions, "unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." (Code of Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280, subd. (c).) As Defendant has not replied to the RFA, the Court grants the motion to deem admitted matters specified in the RFA.

Plaintiff requests sanctions in connection with the motion. The Court concludes Defendant's failure to serve responses to the discovery constitutes an abuse of the discovery process and awards sanctions. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,010, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $650 per hour, plus the filing fee.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD is granted. Defendant is to serve verified responses, without objections, within 30 days of notice of this order. Defendant is deemed to have admitted matters specified in the RFA as of this date. Defendant is to pay sanctions in the amount of $2,010 to Plaintiff, by and through Plaintiff's Counsel, within 30 days of notice of this order. Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the Court's ruling and to file proof of service of same. | Home -->)" -->