Motion to Tax Costs
Conservatorship of Rogelio Perez-Plancarte 25PR000117
PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PROBATE CONSERVATOR OF THE PERSON – LIMITED CONSERVATORSHIP
APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Conservatorship of Phillip Craig 26PR000061
PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PROBATE CONSERVATOR OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE
APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Francisco J Carrillo Carlos et al v. Subaru of America, Inc. 24CV000871
DEFENDANT SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS OF PLAINTIFFS
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Court orders the Memorandum of Costs filed by Plaintiff on April 13, 2026, taxed in the amount of $527.55. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects.
The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to opposing party/ies forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.
Defendant Subaru Of America, Inc. moves, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1794, subdivision (d), and 1033.5, and California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700, for an order taxing Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Costs in the amount of $2,024.20.
Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement on November 21, 2025. On April 13, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum of Costs seeking to recover $5,309.53 in costs in the action. On May 4, 2026, Defendant filed the instant motion to tax those requested costs.
Through the moving papers, Defendant, by challenging only $2,024.20 of the $5,309.53 in costs requested by Plaintiffs, concedes that Plaintiffs are “prevailing buyers” for purposes of the cost and fee shifting provisions of Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d).
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
“If the buyer prevails in an action under this section, the buyer 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.” (Civil Code § 1794, subd. (d).)
Defendant challenges $1,870.20 in deposition transcript fees, and $154.50 in service of process fees.
The following facts appear to be uncontroverted. On September 24, 2024, Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified without attempting to meet and confer with Defendant regarding the scheduling of said deposition. (See Declaration of Michael Figura at ¶ 4 (Figura Decl.).) Defendant timely objected to the deposition being held at the noticed date and time, indicated that it would “not produce its person(s) most qualified for deposition at the unilaterally noticed date, time, and location set forth in the Notice,” but indicated a willingness to produce a witness at a mutually convenient date, time and location. (See id. at ¶ 5; see also Declaration of Sharon L. Stewart at ¶ 3 and Exh. A (Stewart Decl.).) Nevertheless, Plaintiffs proceeded with the deposition and took a certificate of Defendant’s nonappearance. (See Figura Decl. at ¶ 6 and Exh. 3.)
Based on the foregoing, the Court does not find that the $527.55 incurred for this deposition transcript were reasonably incurred by Plaintiff. (See Civil Code § 1794, subd. (d).)
The Court finds that all other challenged costs were reasonably incurred. Plaintiffs present evidence that, following the first non-appearance, Plaintiffs made significant efforts to meet and confer with Defendant to select a mutually agreeable date, time, and location for the depositions of Defendant’s PMQ, and for co-defendant dealership’s PMQ. (See Figura Decl. at ¶¶ 7-19.) The Court finds that these efforts were reasonable, and that Defendant’s lack of responsiveness, and failure to commit to a date, time, and location, rendered the subsequent costs associated with non-appearance depositions reasonably incurred.
The Court further finds that the explanation provided by Plaintiffs as to the disparity in per-person service fees is reasonable and justifies each of the $92.70 service fees. (See Figura Decl. at ¶ 21.)
Based on the foregoing, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART.
In The Matter of Nicole Thomas 26CV000775
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME
TENTATIVE RULING: Notice has been properly published and no written objections have been filed. The petition is GRANTED without need for appearance.
15