Barron, Oscar vs. City of Tulare

Case No.: VCU297068 Date: June 11, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Plaintiffs' Motion to Tax Costs Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion in part and award $8,998.92 in costs

Facts In this matter, the Court entered judgment following the granting of Defendant City's motion for summary judgment. Notice of entry of judgment occurred May 5, 2026. On May 5, 2026, Defendant City filed its memorandum of costs seeking $38,406.30 as follows: Cost | Amount | Challenge by Plaintiff? | 1. Filing and Motion Fees | $830.54 | Yes | 4. Deposition costs | $8,079.55 | Yes | 5. Service of Process

| $507.32 | No | 14. Fees for electronic filing or service | $251.40 | Yes | 16. Other | $28,737.48 | Yes | Total | $38,406.30 | | On May 11, 2026, Plaintiffs filed this motion to tax costs, challenging each category as noted below.

"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." (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(2).) Here, Plaintiffs' motion follows Rule 3.1700(b)(2) as to specific categories identified above in the chart and discussed in greater detail below.

The starting point is the verified Memorandum of Costs and Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5. "[T]he verified Memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred" and the burden rests with the party seeking to tax costs to show they were improper, unreasonable or unnecessary. (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 855-856.)

Allowable costs under section 1033.5 must be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation, and must be reasonable in amount. An item not specifically allowable under Section 1033.5(a) nor prohibited under subdivision (b) may nevertheless be recoverable in the discretion of the court if they meet the above requirements (i.e., reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount).

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. (Ladas v. California State Automotive Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-774.) 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. (Id.) 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. (Id.)

"[T]he mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a 'proper objection' to an item, the necessity of which appears doubtful, or which does not appear to be proper on its face. [Citation.] However, '[i]f the items appear to be proper charges, the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred by the defendant [citations], and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the [objecting party].' [Citations.]" (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.)

A party contesting costs must state why the contested item is objectionable. (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700(b)(2)). Factual recitals rather than mere conclusions are required. Conclusory allegations that the item was "neither necessary nor reasonable" do not satisfy the objecting party's burden. (County of Ker v. Ginn (1983) 146 Cal_App.3d 1107, 1113-1114; Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266).

1. Filing and Motion Fees Plaintiffs generally argue that Defendant's claimed amount is excessive and are unsupported by sufficient documentation establishing that the claimed amounts were reasonably necessary to the litigation. However, the Court notes these appear to be standard filing and motion fees associated with this case. Guillemin v. Stein (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 156, 163-164 indicates that "Filing fees are therefore costs incurred but not paid, which are recoverable under the general costs statute. Moreover, section 6103.5 specifically prescribes the inclusion of these fees as costs in a judgment; therefore a trial court does not have any discretion to tax them." As such, the Court denies the motion as to this category.

4. Deposition Costs Court Reporter Costs In this category, Plaintiffs first challenge Defendant's court reporter costs of $1,000 as to a hearing on challenge to judgment January 29, 2026. Plaintiffs note no hearing was held, as the Court tentatively ruled on the issue and no oral argument was requested.

Code of Civil Procedure section Sec. 1033.5(a)(11) expressly allows recovery of "court reporter fees as established by statute." (Code Civ. Proc Sec. 1033.5(a)(11).) Additionally, transcripts of court proceedings not ordered by the court are not recoverable. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1033.5(b)(5).) Gov. Code, Sec. 68086(d) states, in relevant part: ""(2) That if an official court reporter is not available, a party may arrange for, at the party's expense, the presence of a certified shorthand reporter to serve as an official pro tempore reporter.

At the arranging party's request, the court shall appoint the certified shorthand reporter to be present in the courtroom and serve as the official reporter pro tempore unless there is good cause shown for the court to refuse that appointment. The fees and charges of the certified shorthand reporter shall be recoverable as taxable costs by the prevailing party as otherwise provided by law. (3) That if the services of an official pro tempore reporter are utilized pursuant to paragraph (2), no other charge shall be made to the parties."

Here Court reporter fees are authorized by statute and Defendant hired a court reporter at its own expense pursuant to Gov. Code Sec. 68086(d)(2) above. That no oral argument was requested, and hence no hearing took place, does not obviate the need to hire the reporter in anticipation of a request for oral argument and hearing. Therefore, the Court denies the motion as to this category.

Deposition Costs Here, Plaintiffs note that as to the deposition of Arturo Torres conducted on May 6, 2024, Defendant seeks recovery of $911.00 under Item 4A, while also separately claiming $685.00 on Attachment 4A for the same deposition. Additionally, as ot the deposition of Euler Torres conducted on August 22, 2024, Defendant seeks recovery of $651.55, while also separately claiming $1,255.00 and an additional $651.00 on Attachment 4A relating to the same deponent.

California Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1033.5(a)(3) expressly states that costs are allowable for: " taking, video recording, and transcribing necessary depositions, including an original and one copy of those taken by the claimant and one copy of depositions taken by the party against whom costs are allowed." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1033.5(a)(3).) (emphasis added.) Fees for an interpreter are likewise recoverable. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1033.5(a)(3).) "A prevailing party is entitled to the reasonable cost of taking depositions unless it appears that the taking of the depositions was unnecessary." (Ceranski v. Muensch (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 751, 755.)

Here, Defendant notes that the $911 under Item 4.a. as to Arturo Torres was for the transcript and the $685 on Attachment 4A was for the interpreter at the deposition. Similarly, the Defendant notes the $1,255.00 incurred as to Euler Torres on Attachment 4A was for the certificate of nonappearance and the additional $651.00 was for the transcript thereof. However, Defendant does not address the $651.55 listed on Item 4.d. Therefore, the Court will tax this category in the amount of $651.55.

14. Electronic Fees Plaintiffs seek to tax $227.73 for electronic filing fees, noting that Defendant has already requested filing fees in Item No. 1 above. Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(14) permits recovery of fees for electronic filing or service only "if a court requires or orders electronic filing or service of documents" and that Tulare County does not mandate electronic filing or service. The Court views 1033.5(a)(14) as precluding recovery for these types of costs if not required or ordered by this Court.

The Court does not view these costs as valid on their face given the prohibition under section 1033.5(a)(14) because 1033.5(c)(4) states " (4) Items not mentioned in this section and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court's discretion." Here, the item of electronic filing and service is mentioned in this section under (a)(14). This subsection explicitly states electronic filing fees are only recoverable if they are court-ordered. Therefore, the Court will strike the entire amount sought in this category.

16. Other As an initial matter, the Court notes the expert fees are totaled under Category 16 on the first page of the memorandum, but listed under 8b of the worksheet. Additionally, the total listed under Category 16 is $28,737.48. However, the expert fees are stated as $27,230.00 and the other costs are stated as $ 1,361.41, adding up to $28,591.41. As such, the Court first strikes the $146.07 in what appears to be mathematical error.

Expert Costs Plaintiffs seek to strike the entire $27,230.00 in expert costs noting no section 998 offer in this matter. Defendant stipulates to the striking of this cost. The Court, therefore, strikes the entire $27,230.00.

Investigation, Mileage, FedEx and Copying Here, Defendant seeks cost in the amount of $1,361.41. Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(b) expressly excludes investigation expenses, postage and photocopying charges, except for exhibits. Additionally, "The only travel expenses authorized by section 1033.5 are those to attend depositions. (Sec.1033.5, subd. (a)(3).) Routine expenses for local travel by attorneys or other firm employees are not reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation." (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 761, 775-776.) $233.06 appears to be related to travel costs incurred to attend the deposition and therefore the Court will not tax

this amount. However, Defendant cites to no statutory or case authority permitting the recovery of investigation expenses, postage and photocopying charges unrelated to exhibits, other than arguing these costs were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. Therefore, the Court will tax this category in the amount of $1,128.35

Summary Therefore, the Court awards $8,998.92 in costs as follows: Cost | Amount Sought | Amount Awarded | 1. Filing and Motion Fees | $830.54 | $830.54 | 4. Deposition costs | $8,079.55 | $7,428.00 | 5. Service of Process | $507.32 | $507.32 | 14. Fees for electronic filing or service | $251.40 | $0.00 | 16. Other | $28,737.48

| $233.06 | Total | $38,406.30 | $8,998.92 |

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings. Re: Graham, Michael vs. CA Farms, LLC