In The Matter of Nicole Thomas

“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.)