John Henao vs. FCA US LLC

34-2020-00281839-CU-BC-GDS: John Henao vs. FCA US LLC 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-servicestranscripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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 Court’s 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

34-2020-00281839-CU-BC-GDS: John Henao vs. FCA US LLC 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 16D

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant FCA US, LLC’s motion to strike/tax Plaintiff’s John Henao’s memorandum of costs is ruled upon as follows.

In this lemon law action Defendant seek to strike or tax Plaintiff’s memorandum of costs which seeks $10,128.80 in costs. Defendant argues that either all of the costs should be stricken or that certain claimed costs should be taxed.

This matter was settled when Plaintiff accepted Defendant’s Code of Civil Procedure §998 offer to compromise. There is no dispute that Plaintiff is the prevailing party and this Court has previously awarded Plaintiff attorney fees on that basis.

A buyer prevailing in an action brought pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act “shall be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees based on actual time expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action.” (Civ. Code § 1794(d).) “[E]xpenses” includes items beyond the “costs” set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5. (Jensen v.

BMW of North America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 137-38.) “[I]t is clear that the Legislature intended the word ‘expenses’ to cover items not included in the detailed statutory definition of ‘costs’.” (Id.) Case law indicates that the statute is similar to CCP § 1033.5(c) which requires that allowable costs be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 807, 813, n. 2.) Thus, while Civil Code § 1794 allows for recovery of items beyond the costs set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5, the costs and expenses must still be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and reasonable in amount. (Id. at 816.)

If items in the memorandum of costs appear to be proper charges, the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence of their propriety. (See, e.g. Davis Lumber Co. v. Hubbell (1955) 137 Cal App 2d 148; Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00281839-CU-BC-GDS: John Henao vs. FCA US LLC 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 16D

217 Cal App 2d 678.) “If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Ass’n (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) However, 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, 1267.)

At the outset, to the extent that Defendant moves to strike the entirety of the cost memorandum on the basis that Plaintiff failed to provide any support for the claimed costs, the motion is denied. Indeed, while Defendant contends that the cost memorandum did not include invoices, the cost memo filed on February 2, 2026 contained over 50 pages of invoices to support the costs claimed in the cost memorandum. In fact, Defendant even refers to those invoices in the instant motion. In reality, the motion is focused on seeking to strike costs related to a deposition transcript and messenger fees. (Mot. 5:1-24.)

Deposition Transcript

Defendant moves to tax $1,714.75 related to deposition transcript costs. Defendant asserts that the cost memorandum improperly includes two requests for $1,714.75 for duplicate deposition transcripts. In opposition, Plaintiff concedes that this amount should be taxed and was mistakenly included in the cost memorandum. Thus, the Court taxes the $1,714.75 requested by Defendant.

Other Costs

Defendant also seeks to tax the $1,640.40 in the category of “other” costs, in the amount of $580.40.

Under “other” Plaintiff claimed $1,640.40 for courier and messenger services and Court appearance fees. The Court would note that costs for courier and messenger services are permissible even under the more restrictive standard set forth in CCP § 1033.5 given that the statute does not expressly prohibit their recovery. (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 776 [proper where “related to trial preparation, and were incurred for such matters as filing documents with the court, complying with appellants’ document demands, and transporting exhibits to and from the courtroom”].) Again, however, this involves the more expansive recovery in Civil Code § 1794(d).

First, Defendant is incorrect to the extent that the cost memorandum failed to provide

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00281839-CU-BC-GDS: John Henao vs. FCA US LLC 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 16D

receipts of invoices for the $580.40 in courier and messenger fees which it seeks to tax. The cost memorandum, contains an attachment listing each item of costs, identifies the date incurred, and includes all of the invoices associated with those costs. These costs include service costs for deposition subpoenas, and costs for electronic service of documents. These costs appear to be proper and Defendant has made no showing that the are either unreasonable or unnecessary. Defendant has simply offered conclusory statements that the costs are improper. As set forth above, such statements are insufficient. (Jones, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at 1267.) The claimed costs are appropriate under Civil Code § 1794(d).

In conclusion, Defendant’s motion is granted to the extent that the cost memorandum is taxed in the amount of $1,714.75. It is denied in all other respects.

Plaintiff is therefore awarded costs in the amount of $8,414.05.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.