CLAUDIO S. NICOLOSI VS. CHRISTINA NICOLOSI, ET AL

09/03/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 15 of 17

UD LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2026 2:00 PM LINE 9 26-UDL-00477 CLAUDIO S. NICOLOSI VS. CHRISTINA NICOLOSI, ET AL

CLAUDIO S. NICOLOSI STEVEN T. NAUMCHIK CHRISTINA NICOLOSI PRO PER

MOTION TO STRIKE/TAX COSTS

TENTATIVE RULING:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff Claudio Nicolosi’s Motion to Strike or Tax Defendant Mark Williams’s Memorandum of Costs is DENIED.

Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendant Mark Williams from this action on June 11, 2026. A defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered is a prevailing party entitled to recover allowable costs as a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subds. (a)(4), (b); Sanabria v. Embrey (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 422, 425–426.) The fact that the action remains pending against another defendant does not postpone Williams’s prevailing-party status or his right to claim costs. (Ibid.; Fries v. Rite Aid Corp. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 182, 193.)

Williams’s June 26, 2026 Memorandum of Costs was timely following his June 11, 2026 dismissal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1).) Williams seeks $255 in filing and motion fees and $625 in service-of-process expenses, both categories of which are allowable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a). Williams’s verified memorandum, declaration, and supporting documentation sufficiently establish that the claimed expenses were incurred in defending the action. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the claimed costs were unnecessary or unreasonable.

Accordingly, Williams is entitled to recover costs in the amount of $880. His additional, unquantified request for costs incurred in opposing the present motion is DENIED without prejudice.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare a written order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide notice of the ruling to all appearing parties as required by law. The Court further directs the parties’ attention to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (eff. Jan. 1, 2024) regarding the form of proposed orders.