Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Strike or Tax Costs in Department 27

Tentative Ruling

Tentative Ruling:

NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.

I.

Background

Plaintiffs Peter M. Sailors, Damian Sailors and Tim Hurst (“Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against Defendants Sarah Waters and Diane Waters to recover damages for failure to pay wages, failure to pay various business expenses and wrongful termination. These claims arise from Plaintiffs’ employment at Waters Bail Bonds as bail bondsmen during the period from April 2020 to April 2023.

This matter came before the Hon. Renuka George in Department 27 for a five-day jury trial. On November 13, 2025, the Court granted Defendant Diane Waters motion for non-suit. The jury found that Defendant Sarah Waters (“Defendant” or “Waters”) owed Plaintiff Damian Sailors unpaid wages in the sum of $1084.44; Plaintiff Peter Sailors unpaid wages in the sum of $2168.88; and Plaintiff Timothy Hurst unpaid wages in the sum of $1626.66. However, the jury found Plaintiffs did not prove any meal break or rest break violations; the jury did not find that Plaintiffs worked overtime; or that Defendant Waters failed to pay the full amount of wages earned by Plaintiffs on the last day of their employment. (Judgment on Special Verdict, November 14, 2025.)

On November 14, 2025, the Court entered Judgement on Special Verdict (Judgment on Special Verdict, November 14, 2025.) On December 2, 2025, Plaintiff Damian Sailors filed a Memorandum of Costs requesting $435 in filing and motion fees; $692 in jury fees; $1,374.64 in deposition costs; $60.00 in service of process; $4,333.33 in witness fees; $2,223.33 in court reporter fees as established by statute; $25.02 in models enlargements and photocopies of exhibits fees; and $90.66 in fees for electronic filing or service; for a total of $9,233.98 in costs.

On December 2, 2025, Plaintiffs Peter Sailors and Hurst also filed a Memorandum of Costs, each requesting identical costs: $435 in filing and motion fees; $1,374.64 in deposition costs; $60.00 in service of process; $4,333.33 in witness fees; $2,223.33 in court reporter fees as established by statute; $25.02 in models enlargements and photocopies of exhibits fees; and $90.66 in fees for electronic filing or service; for a total of $8,541.98 in costs.

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Strike or Tax Costs in Department 27

On December 18, 2025, Defendant Waters filed a Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs, seeking to strike all the costs as improper because Plaintiffs were not the prevailing party and/or tax Plaintiffs’ request for expert witness fees; for court reporter fees; and for electronic filing. Defendants also move for sanctions against Plaintiffs for filing a frivolous costs memorandum. On February 6, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendants Motion to Strike/Tax Costs. Defendants filed a Reply.

After reviewing all of the various motions, opposition, and supporting documents, the Court rules as follows:

II. Analysis

a. Defendant’s Motion to Strike

At the outset, Defendant Waters argue that their motion to strike Plaintiff’s costs and fees should be granted because Plaintiffs are not the prevailing parties. Plaintiffs argue that as the party with a judgment in their favor against Defendant Waters, they are the prevailing parties.

i. Is Plaintiff the Prevailing Party?

The prevailing party is defined as the party with net monetary recovery, a defendant who is dismissed from the action, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant recovers anything; a defendant as to those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant. (CCP § (1032(a)(4).) In this action, the only applicable category would be the party with net monetary recovery. Here, each Plaintiff received a net monetary award from the jury via special verdict; Plaintiff Damian Sailors was awarded unpaid wages in the sum of $1084.44; Plaintiff Peter Sailors was awarded unpaid wages in the sum of $2168.88; and Plaintiff was awarded Timothy Hurst unpaid wages in the sum of $1626.66. (Judgment on Special Verdict, November 14, 2025.) Defendant Sarah Waters recovered nothing. As such, Plaintiffs had the net monetary recovery and is the prevailing party.[1]

Defendant Sarah Waters’ Motion to Strike on this this basis is DENIED

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Strike or Tax Costs in Department 27

b. Is Defendant’s Motion Procedurally Defective?

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs is procedurally defective under Rule 3.1700(b)(1) because Defendant challenged all three Memorandum of Costs at once, instead of individually. Under California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(1), “ [a]ny notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013.

If the cost memorandum was served electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(3).” (CRC 3.1700(b)(1).) This rule appears to be inapplicable to Plaintiffs’ argument. However, under California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(2), “Unless objection is made to the entire cost memorandum, the motion to strike or tax costs must refer to each item objected to by the same number and appear in the same order as the corresponding cost item claimed on the memorandum of costs and must state why the item is objectionable.” (CRC 3.1700(b)(2).)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the rule does not preclude Defendant Waters from attacking each objectionable category of costs for all three Plaintiffs at once, especially where the costs are identical for each Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs also cite Betancourt v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 240, 248-249 in support of their argument. However, Plaintiffs’ reliance on this cite is misplaced as it concerns attorney fee awards for rest and meal break violations and an inadequate appellate record; none of which are at issue in Waters’ Motion to Strike/Tax Costs.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs fails to demonstrate that Defendant’s motion is procedurally defective on this ground.

c. Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ memorandum of costs should be taxed for witness fees, court reporter fees and electronic filing fees. Defendant does not contest Plaintiff Damian Sailors’ jury fees of $692,00, but appears to contest identical filing and motion fees for each of the three Plaintiffs in the amount of $435, deposition costs in the amount of $1,374.00 each; service of process in the amount of $60 each; and models and enlargement costs in the amount of $25.02 each. Plaintiff opposes. The Court rules on each area of requested cost below.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Strike or Tax Costs in Department 27

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1032(b).) Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5 sets forth specific items of costs that are expressly allowed or disallowed. Where items of costs are neither expressly allowed or disallowed, the Court has discretion to allow or deny those costs. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c)(4).) Costs are recoverable only if they were “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation” and “reasonable in amount.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c)(2)-(3).)

“In ruling upon a motion to tax costs, the trial court's first determination is whether the statute expressly allows the particular item and whether it appears proper on its face. ‘If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show [the costs] to be unnecessary or unreasonable.’” (Foothill-De Anza Community College Dist. v. Emerich (“Foothill”) (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 29 quoting Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) “Where costs are not expressly allowed by the statute, the burden is on the party claiming the costs to show that the charges were reasonable and necessary.” (Foothill, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 29.) “Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (Ladras v.

California State Auto Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) i. Filing and Motion Fees

Each Plaintiff claims costs for filing and motion fees in the amount of $435, for a total of $1,305. Defendant challenges these fees on the basis that Plaintiff should not be awarded this cost three times, when it appears that Plaintiffs incurred this cost only once. Plaintiffs claim that they are not seeking triple recovery of the same expense, but rather for a shared cost. Yet, from the court’s own record, it appears that only one Complaint was filed on April 3, 2023, naming all three Plaintiffs as parties, and that only one fee of $435 was paid to the Court Clerk on April 4, 2023. (Payment received for 194 in the amount of $435, transaction number 2487355.) Thus, it appears that Plaintiffs improperly seek triple recovery for this cost.

Defendant’s motion to tax costs is granted in the amount of $870. Plaintiffs are awarded $435 for filing and motion fees.

ii. Deposition Costs

Plaintiffs claim deposition costs in the amount of $4122 ($1,374.64 each). Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Strike or Tax Costs in Department 27

challenges these costs on the basis that Plaintiffs should not be awarded this cost three times, when it appears that Plaintiffs incurred this cost only once. Defendant does not otherwise dispute this category of costs. In response, Plaintiffs only argue that Plaintiffs may recover costs separately, but do not otherwise explain if the total costs for depositions are either $4,122 or $1,374. Nor does Mr. Hunt’s declaration shed any light on this issue, as he does not address the issue of deposition costs or provide any receipt. (See Hunt Decl.) Further, given proof to the contrary for the categories of filing and motion fees and for court reporter costs, the Court has very serious concerns about the veracity of these costs and that they were incurred three times.

Defendant’s motion to tax this item of cost is granted in the amount of $2,749.28. Plaintiffs are awarded $1,374.64 for deposition costs.

iii. Service of Process

Plaintiffs claim costs for service of process in the amount of $180 ($60 each). Defendant challenges these costs on the basis that Plaintiffs should not be awarded this cost three times, when it appears that Plaintiffs incurred this cost only once. Defendant does not otherwise dispute this category of costs. Plaintiffs only argue that Plaintiffs may recover costs separately, but do not otherwise explain if the total costs for service of process are either $180 or $60. Nor does Mr. Hunt’s declaration shed any light on this issue, as he does not address the issue of service of process costs or provide any receipt. (See Hunt Decl.) Further, given proof to the contrary for the categories of filing and motion fees and for court reporter costs, the Court has very serious concerns about the veracity of these costs or that they were incurred three times.

Defendant’s motion to tax this item of cost is granted in the amount of $120. Plaintiffs are awarded $60 for service of process costs.

iv. Witness Fees

Plaintiffs claim witness fees in the amount of $12,999($4,333.33 each). Defendant challenges these fees on the basis that 1) that expert witness fees are not allowable costs under the enumerated list in Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 and 2) Plaintiffs should not be awarded this cost three times, when it appears that Plaintiffs incurred this cost only once.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Strike or Tax Costs in Department 27

As to the first issue, Plaintiffs argue that non-expert witness fess are recoverable as a matter of right under CCP §1033.5(a)(7). However, the only witnesses that Plaintiffs called that were non-parties were Mathew Laird and John Savage, both of whom were designated as experts. (November 12, 2025 Minute Order.)

To the extent that Plaintiffs are claiming only witness fees for Laird and Savage, they are only entitled to costs under CCP §1033.5(a)(7), pursuant to Government Code section 68093. Under Government Code section 68093: witness’ fees for each day’s actual attendance, when legally required to attend a civil action or proceeding in the superior courts, are thirty-five dollars ($35) a day and mileage actually traveled, both ways, twenty cents ($0.20) a mile.

As Plaintiff has not provided a receipt for mileage, it would appear that they are only entitled to $35 for each witness.

As to the second issue, Plaintiffs only argue that Plaintiffs may recover costs separately, but do not otherwise explain why they have asked for fees for the same witness three times. Not does Mr. Hunt’s declaration provide an insight on this issue. According to Mr. Hunt’s declaration, Mr. Savage charged $1000 to testify at trial and Mr. Laird charged $795 an hour to testify at trial, for a total of $1,530 or 1.9 hours of testimony. Leaving aside the fact that Mr. Laid only testified for approximately 30 minutes on November 12, 2026 (November 12, 2025 Minute Order.), the total for both witness fees per Mr. Hunt’s declaration is $2,530. This amount is a far cry from the amount claimed by Plaintiffs individually, let alone collectively.

Defendant’s motion to tax this item of cost is granted in the amount of $12,929.99. Plaintiffs are awarded $70 for witness fees.

v. Court Reporter Fees

Plaintiffs claim court reporter fees in the amount of $6,669 ($2,223.33 each). Defendant argues that these costs should be taxed because 1) Defendant Diane Waters paid the costs for the court reporter and 2) Plaintiffs should not be awarded this cost three times, when it appears that Plaintiffs incurred this cost only once.

Plaintiffs argue that court reporter and transcript fees are expressly allowable under CCP §1033.5(a)(11), (13). As a preliminary matter, CCP §1033.5(a)(13) concerns costs

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Strike or Tax Costs in Department 27

for models, enlargements and photocopies and therefore is not applicable to the issue of court reporter fees. Under CCP §1033.5(a)(11), court reporter fees as established by statute are allowable. However, Plaintiffs appear to concede that Defendant Waters paid court reporter fees. Instead Plaintiffs appear to argue that they are entitled to the costs of transcripts. (Pl. Opp. at p. 4:10-16.) Yet, CCP §1033.5 (b)(5) expressly forbids the costs of transcripts not ordered by the court. The Court did not order transcripts. Further, and perhaps most concerning to the Court, Plaintiffs request this cost in the amount of $2,223.33 each. Yet, in their own motion and attached as an exhibit to Mr. Hunt’s declaration, they concede that the actual cost of the transcripts is only $2,135.98 in total. (Id.; Exh. A to Hunt Decl.) As the Court did not order transcripts, this cost is not allowable.

Defendant’s motion to tax costs is granted in the amount of $6,669.

vi. Models, Enlargements and Photocopy of Exhibit Fees

Plaintiffs claim model, enlargement and photocopy exhibit fees in the amount of $75.06 ($25.02 each). Defendant challenges these costs on the basis that Plaintiffs should not be awarded this cost three times, when it appears that Plaintiffs incurred this cost only once. In response, Plaintiffs only argue that Plaintiffs may recover costs separately, but do not otherwise explain if the total costs for this category are either $75.06 or $25.02. Nor does Mr. Hunt’s declaration shed any light on this issue, as he does not address this category of costs or provide any receipt. (See Hunt Decl.) Further, given proof to the contrary for the categories of filing and motion fees and for court reporter costs, the Court has very serious concerns about the veracity of these costs or that they were incurred three times.

Defendant’s motion to tax costs is granted in the amount of $50.04. Plaintiffs are awarded $25.02 for this category of costs.

vii. Fees for Electronic Filing or Service

Plaintiffs claim fees for electronic filing or service in the amount of $271.98 ($90.66 each). Defendant challenges these costs on the basis that Plaintiffs should not be awarded this cost three times, when it appears that Plaintiffs incurred this cost only once. In response, Plaintiffs only argue that Plaintiffs may recover costs separately, but do not otherwise explain if the total costs for this category are either $271.98 or $90.66. Nor does Mr. Hunt’s declaration shed any light on this issue, as he does not address the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Strike or Tax Costs in Department 27

issue of electronic filing or service fees or provide any receipt. (See Hunt Decl.) Further, given proof to the contrary for the categories of filing and motion fees and for court reporter costs, the Court has very serious concerns about the veracity of these costs or that they were incurred three times.

Defendant’s motion to tax costs is granted in the amount of $181.32. Plaintiffs are awarded $90.66 for fees for electronic filing or service.

d. Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions

Defendant Waters moves to sanction Plaintiffs and their counsel for filing a frivolous costs memorandum and requiring this motion. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ motion is baseless as Plaintiffs are entitled to file a memorandum of costs and to defend their costs. As the Plaintiffs are the prevailing party and therefore entitled to costs and as the Court has awarded some costs to Plaintiffs, the Court does not find that Defendant has met her burden of demonstrating that the Memorandum of Costs was frivolous. Therefore sanctions are not warranted.

Defendant’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.

III.

Disposition

Defendants’ Motion to Strike is DENIED. Defendant’s Motion to Tax costs is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part, as follows:

Defendant’s motion to tax filing fees is granted in the amount of $870; to tax deposition costs is granted in the amount of $$2,749.28; to tax service of process is granted in the amount of $120; to tax witness fees is granted in the amount of $12,929.99; to tax court reporter costs is granted in the amount of $6,669; for models, enlargements and exhibits in the amount of $50.04; and for fees for electronic filing or service in the amount of $181.92. In total, Defendants’ Motion to Tax is granted in the amount of $23,569.59.

Plaintiffs are awarded $435 for filing and motion fees; $1374.64 for deposition costs; $60 for service of process costs; $70 witness fees; $0 for court reporter fees; $90.66 fees for electronic filing or service; and $25.02 for models, enlargements and exhibits. In total, Plaintiffs are awarded a total of $2055.32, to be divided equally among the Plaintiffs in the amount of $685.11 per Plaintiff.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Strike or Tax Costs in Department 27

As Defendant Water does not contest Plaintiff Damian Sailors’ request for jury fees in the amount of $692, he is awarded this full amount.

NOTICE: To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 27 at 916-874- 6697 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.) Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date. If oral argument is requested, the parties may and are encouraged to appear by Zoom with the links below: To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept27 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16120204632 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956.

Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Strike or Tax Costs in Department 27

[1] Defendant Sarah Waters argues that Defendant Diane Waters was dismissed as a party via

Defendants’ Motion for Nonsuit. While it is true that the defendant dismissed from the action would be a prevailing party, Plaintiffs Memorandum of Costs is claimed against Sarah Waters and only Defendant Sarah Waters brought the Motion to Strike/Tax Costs.