Brown VS AGCO Corporation

The losing party may dispute any or all of the items in the prevailing party's costs memorandum by a motion to strike or tax costs. (See CRC 3.1700(b).)

Where objections to a verified Memorandum of Costs are based on factual matters (e.g., disputes as to nature or amount of particular costs), the motion to strike must be supported by declarations under penalty of perjury. (County of Kern v. Ginn (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1113-1114.) RG20073620: Brown VS AGCO Corporation 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs filed by Familian Corporation (Defendant) CRS# 706567715686 in Department 18 “If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary.

On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.” (Ladas v. California State Automobile Ass'n (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774-776; see also Bender v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 968, 989.) In other words, the prevailing party has the burden to show that the costs are properly compensable pursuant to CCP § 1033.5(a) or (c) and not excluded by § 1033.5(b). Once that showing is made, the party seeking to strike or tax costs has the burden to prove the costs are not reasonable or necessary. (See Nelson v.

Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131; Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 855.)

For example, the burden of proof that a deposition was “unnecessary” or that the cost of taking the deposition was “unreasonable” is on the party seeking to have the item taxed or reduced. (County of Kern, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d at 1113; Nelson, supra.) Likewise, the party seeking to tax costs has the burden of establishing that claimed costs for courier and messenger services, incurred for filing documents with the court and complying with document demands, were excessive. (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 776.)

The contesting party may meet its burden by showing the entire cost bill is improper rather than by challenging particular items. (See Fennessy v. DeLeuw-Cather Corp. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1195, where contestant met burden by showing majority of costs claimed by a dismissed defendant were incurred on behalf of other defendants who remained in the case.)

Trial courts have no authority to reduce allowable costs based on considerations other than necessity or reasonableness of the costs. (Nelson, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at 129-130.)

ANALYSIS OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS

Although not directly raised by Familian’s motion, the Court has determined that pursuant to CCP § 1032, Plaintiffs are the prevailing party by virtue of a net recovery against Familian, and the Court may not reduce compensable costs of suit based on the jury’s apportionment of 30% of the responsibility for Plaintiffs’ injuries to Decedent. (Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 347; Lemos v. Eichel (1978) 83 CAl.App.3d 110, 119.)

Familian argues that it should not be required to pay for costs of suit attributable to any other defendants in this action. Plaintiff in Opposition argues that where Familian sought Prop. 51 apportionment at trial against other defendants to this action, it was reasonably necessary for Plaintiffs to litigate their claims against all former defendants for the parties to determine the respective liability of each defendant. The Court finds that Plaintiff has the stronger argument, but that it should be limited to those defendants against whom Familian sought apportionment at trial (see Judgment on Special Verdict at Corona Dec. Exh. C), because Plaintiff’s claims against the other named defendants were apparently so devoid of evidence that Familian did not seek an apportionment determination from the jury as to these other defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG20073620: Brown VS AGCO Corporation 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs filed by Familian Corporation (Defendant) CRS# 706567715686 in Department 18

Further, Familian has failed to present evidence supporting a finding that a majority of the amounts Plaintiffs seeks for facially compensable costs of suit pursuant to CCP § 1033.5(a) were not reasonable and necessary for adjudication of the claims and defenses presented at trial in this action. Instead, Familian’s moving and reply arguments incorrectly attempt to shift its burden of production regarding whether Plaintiffs’ facially compensable costs were reasonable and necessary to the claims and defenses litigated at trial.

With the above considerations in mind, the Court finds the following costs properly chargeable under CCP § 1033.5.

With respect to Categories Nos. 1 (filing and motion fees), 2 (jury fees), 3 (jury food at trial), and 13 (trial presentation fees) listed in the Memorandum of Costs in the respective amounts of $2,234.50; $2,410.20; $2,511.81; and $13,541.25, the Court finds all of these costs awardable pursuant to § 1033.5(a) and reasonable in amount under the circumstances. Familian in its moving and Reply papers presents no evidence to support a finding that any of these charges is unreasonable or unnecessary.

In light of the Court’s limited judicial resources, it does not have the resources to wade through a voluminous record to determine whether individual charges were or were not reasonably necessary to the claims and defenses litigated at trial. Instead, it is the responsibility of the party seeking to strike or tax these costs to go through the record and present evidence that individual charges are not necessary or reasonable.

With respect to Category No. 14 (electronic filing and service fees), the Court awards Plaintiff $9,635.77 of the $9,661.77 requested. In Reply at p. 8:13-19 Familian identifies two $13 filing charges regarding defendants not listed in the Judgment on Special Verdict. However, Familian’s argument that PIOE Exh. K does not show the electronic filing charges between each date listed in the Memorandum of Costs at Attachment 14 lacks merit.

With respect to Category 4 (deposition costs), the Court finds the amount of $73,610.29 is awardable and reasonable in amount under the circumstances. Plaintiffs in Opposition agreed to withdraw a claim for $789.57 for travel expenses; and the Court finds that $2,700 paid for deposition cancellation fees is a charge that may be awarded pursuant to § 1033.5(c) at the Court’s discretion, and the Court elects to award $1,350 or 50% of these cancellation fees.

Further, the Court finds that the deposition costs Plaintiffs request should be reduced by $7,960.95 for depositions taken of the persons most qualified of defendants A. H. Voss, CNH and Water Applications. Neither Plaintiffs nor Familian at trial sought a determination as to the respective liabilities of any of these defendants. The Court therefore finds these depositions were not reasonably necessary for the trial of Plaintiffs’ claims against Familian or Familian’s defenses thereto, including Prop. 51 apportionment. However, Familian failed to meet its burden to present evidence that any of the other deposition expenses Plaintiffs request, and show they incurred, were not reasonably necessary for trial of the claims and defenses presented to the jury for resolution. (County of Kern, supra.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG20073620: Brown VS AGCO Corporation 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs filed by Familian Corporation (Defendant) CRS# 706567715686 in Department 18

With respect to Category 5 (service of process fees), the Court finds the amount of $1,877.00 is awardable and reasonable in amount under the circumstances. The Court was able to locate only ten charges in Exh. H to Plaintiffs’ Index of Exhibits (“PIOE”) attributable to Familian and the other ten defendants listed in the Judgment on Special Verdict, and one of these charges appears to be a duplicate charge. (See Exh. H, supra, at charges re: Pipeco Holding Inc. f/k/a Pacific Pipe Company.) The total of these reasonable and necessary service of process fees is $1,877.00.

With respect to Category 11 (court reporter fees), CCP § 1033.5(a)(11) authorizes “court reporter fees established by statute.” The relevant statute is Gov’t Code § 68086, which charges $30 per hour to the moving party or party requesting a court reporter where the court provides a court reporter. (See Heppler v. J.M. Peters Co. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1265, 1298.) However, “transcripts of court proceedings not ordered by the court” are not compensable pursuant to § 1033.5(b)(5).

This Court no longer provides court reporters at Gov’t Code § 68086’s subsidized rate to civil litigants in most circumstances due to budgetary constraints. This Court therefore finds that some portion of the court reporter fees requested by Plaintiff are compensable pursuant to § 1033.5(c), because Court reporting of proceedings is a reasonably necessary cost of suit. In the present circumstances, the Court finds the amount of $30,064.89, representing one-half of the $60,129.78 requested by Plaintiffs is awardable and reasonable in amount under the circumstances, based on the Court’s rough calculation that one-half of the court reporter charges are for the reporter’s presence at the hearing and is compensable, while the other half is for the production of a transcript, which is not compensable unless ordered by the Court.

The Court disregards the manner in which the private court reporters retained by Plaintiff have allocated the costs of their services in their billing statements, because they appear to reflect the reporters’ efforts to maximize their revenues for services provided rather than constituting an accurate allocation of the time spent to produce transcripts not compensable pursuant to § 1033.5(b)(5). (See PIOE Exh. I.) Familian does not present any evidence to support a finding that the at-issue court reporter fees are otherwise unreasonable in amount or unnecessary.

Similarly, Familian has not cited to legal authority for the proposition that the Court may not allocate Plaintiff’s private court reporter fees in the manner hereinabove.

Plaintiffs in Opposition appear to concede $7,249.65 spent for Realtime services during trial is a discretionary amount that may be awarded pursuant to § 1033.5. (See Opp. MPA at p. 9:20-24.) The Court in its discretion elects not to award this $7,249.65 amount.

With respect to Category 15 (other expenses the Court may award pursuant to § 1033.5), the Court finds the amount $2,637.96 is awardable and reasonable in amount under the circumstances. $3,537.96 is for delivery of courtesy copies, which Dept. 18 requires pursuant to Local Rule 3.30(c). The Court elects to grant this amount except for $900, representing the cost to provide the Court with paper courtesy copies with respect to dispositive motions brought by defendants City of Santa Cruz, A. H. Voss and Granite Construction, none of whom appear in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG20073620: Brown VS AGCO Corporation 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs filed by Familian Corporation (Defendant) CRS# 706567715686 in Department 18 the Judgment on Special Verdict. The remaining miscellaneous charges the Court in its discretion elects to deny.

The total amount of the costs deemed appropriate and reasonable in amount above is $138,523.67.

Wherefore, the Court AWARDS Plaintiffs costs of suit in the total amount of $138,523.67.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps.

1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.