Unknown v. Sehee Corp.

the Hatlevig Court was merely construing the law as it already existed, and clearly intended the holding to apply to all cases, whether already pending or in the future.

The motion is denied due to failure to file and serve the moving papers within 180 days after dismissal of the action. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Defense Counsel moves to be relieved from representation of Defendant, Sehee Corp. on the ground that Sehee has filed for bankruptcy and has indicated to Counsel that it has not assets and does not wish to be further represented in this action. Counsel declares he confirmed Sehee's address by conversation and has filed proof of service of the moving papers on Sehee and Plaintiff. The motion is unopposed and granted. Relief is effective upon filing proof of service of the final order on Sehee.

The Court notes that Defense Counsel declares he has advised Plaintiff that Sehee is in bankruptcy but Plaintiff has indicated an intent to proceed against Sehee despite the bankruptcy proceedings. The case is set for trial on 10/05/26, with the Final Status Conference scheduled for 10/02/26. The Court sets an OSC re: continued prosecution against Sehee in light of the automatic stay for 10/02/26, to be heard concurrently with the FSC. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed against Sehee, Plaintiff must brief its right to do so in light of the automatic stay at least one week prior to the FSC and must appear at the FSC and articulate a legal basis for proceeding despite the stay. Defense Counsel is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 24LBCV01223 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: S27

1. Standard on Motion to Tax Costs

The parties disagree concerning who has the burden on a motion to tax costs. Plaintiff argues the memorandum itself meets the initial burden, and the party challenging the costs has the burden to show they are unreasonable. Defendant argues the memorandum constitutes only prima facie evidence that the costs were incurred, but once the moving party challenges the costs, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show they were both actually AND reasonably incurred.

If the items on their face appear to be proper charges, the verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary. Ladas v. California State Auto. Ass'n (1993) 19 CA4th 761, 774-776. On the other hand, items that are properly objected to are put in issue, and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. Id. at 774-776.

As a practical matter, this means items the trial court can readily verify, such as filing fees, are sufficiently established merely by placing them on the costs bill. Items that the trial court cannot readily verify, such as travel expenses, once challenged, must be justified by the