Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 133

Tentative Ruling

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 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; 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, Defendant Diane Waters filed a Memorandum of Costs requesting $555 in filing and motion fees; $865 in jury fees; $1,545.24 in deposition costs; $85.00 in service of process; $8,2000 in court reporter fees as established by statute; and $166.65 in fees for electronic filing or service; for a total of $11,417.39 in costs.

On December 17, 2025, Plaintiffs Peter Sailors, Damian Sailors and Timothy Hurst filed a Motion to Tax Costs, seeking to tax Defendant Diane Waters for failure to request for expert witness fees; for court reporter fees; and for electronic filing. On February 6, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendants Motion to Strike/Tax Costs. At the February 20, 2026, hearing, the Court ruled that although it had granted Defendant Diane Waters’ Motion for Directed Verdict as to Defendant Diane Waters, it had yet to issue the Judgment as to Diane Waters, making Defendant’s Memorandum of Costs premature and directing Defendants to refile the Memorandum of Costs after entry of Judgment.

On February 20, 2026, the Court issued Judgment in favor of Defendant Diane Water. On March 5, 2026, Defendants filed a Memorandum of Costs requesting $555 in filing

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 133

and motion fees; $865 in jury fees; $1,545.24 in deposition costs; $85.00 in service of process; $8,2000 in court reporter fees as established by statute; and $166.65 in fees for electronic filing or service; for a total of $11,417.39 in costs. On March 12, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike and/or Tax Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs. On May 14, 2026, Defendant Diane Waters filed an Opposition and on May 20, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Reply.

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

II. Analysis:

a. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike on the Basis that Defendant is Time Barred.

First, in its first round of opposition filed on December 17, 2025, Plaintiffs argued that Defendant Diane Water’s Memorandum of Costs was premature because Judgment had not been entered. Now, Plaintiffs argue that it is too late. A cost memorandum is due the earlier of 1) 15 days after the clerk’s mailing of notice of entry of judgment or dismissal (under CCP § 664.5); 2) 15 days after any party’s service of such notice; or 3) 180 days after entry of judgment. (CRC 3.1700 (a)(1). Allowing for 5 days for mailing (CCP § 1013), the Thanksgiving holiday and the weekend, the Court finds that Defendant’s original Memorandum is timely.

Regardless, per the February 20, 2026, the Court sua sponte allowed Defendant Diane Waters to refile the Memorandum of Costs after the Court’s entered Judgment on February 20, 2026. The Court finds Defendant’s refiled Memorandum of Costs to be timely. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant Diane Waters’ Memorandum of Costs on the basis that it is time barred is DENIED. b. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike on the Basis that Defendant Diane Waters is not the Prevailing Party under Labor Code section 218.5 Plaintiffs argue that Labor Code section 218.5 no longer permits fee awards to employers unless the court finds that the employee brought the wage claim in bad faith.

However, Defendant Waters brings her claim for costs as the prevailing party under CCP§1032. Defendant Waters argues that she was dismissed as a party by the Court and is therefore the prevailing party. Defendant argues that she is entitled to litigation

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 133

costs under CCP§1032 as the prevailing party. (Def. Opp. to Motion to Strike/Tax Costs at p. 2.)) While it is true that “[i[n the absence of a specific Labor Code provision, costs are awarded in employment dispute matters under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032,” here there is a specific Labor Code provision. Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 does not apply where the fee and provision of Labor Code section 218.5 apply. (See Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc. 57 Cal.App.5th 221, 241.) Plaintiffs argue that under Labor Code section 218.5, “if the prevailing party in the court action is not an employee, attorney's fees and costs shall be awarded pursuant to this section only if the court finds that the employee brought the court action in bad faith.” (Labor Code §218.5(a).)

Here, Plaintiffs argue that neither the Court, nor the jury made a finding of bad faith. Further, Defendant Waters did not address the issue in her Opposition. Without either argument or evidence from Defendant Waters, the Court finds that Defendant Waters had failed to meet her burden that Plaintiffs brought this action in bad faith. Plaintiffs Motion to Strike on this basis is GRANTED III.

Disposition

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is GRANTED. Defendant Waters is awarded no costs. ______________________________________________________

NOTICE: To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 133 at 916-875- 2533 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/sscdept133 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 160 1961 8560 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 133

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.