Conservatorship of Rogelio Perez-Plancarte

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).