Thon v. Thompson

Opinion

TODD, Acting P. J.

Ronald P. and Carol Thon, Rolling Hills Estates, Ltd., Rolling Hills Sanitation, Inc., and Raymond Grimm, Sr. (Plaintiffs)

[1548]

appeal a postjudgment order awarding certain costs to Ronald Thompson and Jack Wireman.

After the Rainbow Municipal Water District (the District) rejected their proposed sewer plan in the Fallbrook area, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, followed by several amended complaints, in the superior court. They sued the District and its members, Thompson and Wireman (Defendants). Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment to Defendants. As the prevailing party, Defendants sought costs, including attorney travel and lodging to attend depositions. Plaintiffs moved to strike requests for deposition costs which included charter air travel from Bakersfield to San Diego, hotel bills incurred in San Diego and rental car costs.

Code of Civil Procedure

1

section 1033.5 sets forth the costs recoverable by the prevailing party. To recover a cost, it must be reasonably necessary to the litigation and reasonable in amount.

(Perko’s Enterprises, Inc.

v.

RRNS Enterprises

(1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 244 [5 Cal.Rptr.2d 470].) Plaintiffs recognize section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(3) specifically authorizes reimbursement of travel expenses to attend depositions but argue when the deposition is conducted in the county of jurisdiction, expenses incurred by out-of-county counsel should not be recoverable.

Determination of whether a cost is reasonable is within the trial court’s discretion.

(Ladas

v.

California State Auto. Assn.

(1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 [23 Cal.Rptr.2d 810].) Plaintiffs ask us to read into the statute a provision it does not contain, i.e., limitation of travel expenses incurred in taking a deposition to local travel. We may not construe a statute to add a restriction it does not contain.