motion to tax costs on appeal
and tax these costs. (See Anthony v. Li (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 816, 824-825 [“‘if the parties wanted to allow recovery of the apportioned fee [by] the prevailing party as an item of cost, they were free to spell this out in their agreement,’ but such a provision will not be read into the agreement”].) The motion as to this item is GRANTED and this item of costs shall be stricken.
Item No. 12: Models, Enlargements, and Photocopies of Exhibits: Plaintiff contends it is unclear from Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs whether the $1,960.95 in claimed costs are for exhibits actually used at trial. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(13).) The opposition shows the costs claimed are for models, exhibits, or enlargements used at trial. (See Opp. at p.10:11-14 and Ex. Q.) Plaintiff did not specifically address this item in the reply and thus appears to concede the charges are proper. The motion as to this item is DENIED.
Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED as to $23,735 for post-offer expert witness fees and $12,928.25 in court reporter fees, and thereto a total of $36,663.25 is stricken from the memorandum of costs, which means $17,711.94 of the $54,375.19 sought in the memorandum of costs is awarded to Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.
8. Health and Wellness Lifestyle Club, LLC. vs. Valentine 2023-01358654
Before the court is the motion to tax costs on appeal filed by petitioner Health and Wellness Lifestyle Club, LLC (Petitioner) directed to certain costs claimed in the memorandum of costs on appeal filed by respondent Grove Point Investments, LLC (Respondent). As more fully set forth below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
By this motion Petitioner challenges item nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6 sought in Respondent’s memorandum of costs. A valid costs memorandum establishes a prima facie case for recovery. Thus, the burden is on the party moving to strike or tax costs to establish that each disputed item is not recoverable. (Bach v. County of Butte (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 294, 308
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Item 1 (Filing Fees): Filing fees are an authorized item of costs under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278. Here, the filing fees appear reasons. Prevailing on the motion that gave rise to the filing fee is not the governing standard. The filing fee itself appears reasonable, but the $11.70 credit card processing fee has not been shown to be so. The motion therefore is GRANTED IN PART as to the $11.70 credit card processing fee, but otherwise DENIED.
Item 2 (Preparation of Original and Copies of Clerk’s Transcript or Appendix): The entire sum paid for the record is recoverable. (Alan S. v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 238, 261–262.) Petitioner has failed to establish any basis for taxing or striking this item, and Respondent has presented evidence to show the amount sought is the amount paid to the Superior Court for the record. The Motion therefore DENIED as to this item.
Item 4 (Printing and Copying of Briefs): Respondent has failed to show why $200 in delivery fees for delivery to a residence in Miami, or a $30 expedite fee, was reasonable in context here. The costs for printing and copying briefs, however, are otherwise authorized by California Rules of Court, rule 8.278. The Motion therefore is GRANTED as to $230 of the charges claimed, but otherwise DENIED as to this item.
Item 6 (Transmitting, Filing, and Serving of Record, Briefs, and other Papers): Plaintiff appears to have conceded on reply that this charge is reasonable, and it appears to be. The motion as to this item is therefore DENIED.
Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART such that $241.70 is stricken from the $2,394.30 Respondent sought and Respondent is awarded the balance of $2,152.60 as recoverable appellate costs. Respondent’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
9. Richey vs. Roberts 06CC11271
Before the court is the motion for charging order and to appoint sheriff with power of sale filed by judgment creditor assignee Robert L. Smith DBA Commercial Judgment Recovery (Creditor). As more fully set forth below, the motion is DENIED. Creditor brings the motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 708.310 and 708.320, and California