Case Number: EC064306??? Hearing Date: October 14, 2016??? Dept: A
Vukov v Glendale Adventist Medical Center
MOTION TO TAX COSTS
Calendar: 6
Case No: EC064306
Date: 10/14/16
MP: Plaintiffs, Judith Vukov and Judith Vukov, M.D., Inc.
RP: Defendants, Glendale Adventist Medical Center and Lukas Alexanian
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order taxing all amounts from Defendant?s memorandum of costs.
DISCUSSION:
This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendants improperly removed her from the on-call roster of the emergency room at the Glendale Adventist Medical Center. The case was resolved by a judgment in favor of the Defendants.
This hearing concerns the Plaintiffs? motion to tax costs from the Defendants? memorandum of costs. The notice of motion does not identify the amounts or the items from which amounts should be taxed.
A verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred. Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. (1979) 93 Cal. App. 3d 256, 266. A party seeking to tax costs must provide evidence to rebut this prima facie showing. Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 1258, 1266. Mere statements unsupported by facts are insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing that costs were necessarily incurred. Id.
The Plaintiffs? moving papers and her reply papers do not include any evidence. Her papers contain that which was disapproved in Jones v Dumrichob: ?mere statements unsupported by facts?.
Further, under CRC rule 3.1700(b)(2), unless objection is made to the entire cost memorandum, the motion to 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. A review of the Plaintiff?s motion reveals that it does not comply with this requirement because 1) the Plaintiff does not refer to each item objected to by the number under which it is a cost in the memorandum of costs and 2) the Plaintiff does not refer to each item in the same order as the cost item is claimed in the memorandum of costs.
A comparison of the motion to the Defendant?s memorandum of costs reveals that the Plaintiffs are seeking to tax the following:
1) $436 for Court Reporter Fees from item 12.
2) $3,600 for mediation costs from item 13;
3) $1,350.79 for messenger fees from item 13; and
1. Item 12, Court Reporter Fees
The Plaintiff argues that the $436 amount is not supported. CCP section 1033.5 expressly authorizes a prevailing party to recover court reporter fees. The Defendants? verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence that this $436 cost was necessarily incurred. Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. (1979) 93 Cal. App. 3d 256, 266. The Plaintiffs, as the parties seeking to tax the cost, must provide evidence to rebut this prima facie showing. Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 1258, 1266. Mere statements unsupported by facts are insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing that costs were necessarily incurred. Id.
The Plaintiffs? motion does not include any facts to rebut the prima facie showing in the Defendants? verified memorandum of costs. This was pointed out in the opposition papers. In the Plaintiffs? reply papers, she again did not include any facts to rebut the prima facie showing.
Accordingly, the Court will deny the Plaintiffs? request to tax the $436 cost from item 12 for Court Reporter Fees.
2. Item 13, Other
The Plaintiff requests that the Court tax the costs sought for the mediation fees and the messenger fees. CCP section 1033.5(a) does not authorize the recovery of mediation fees or messenger fees. Instead, these fees may be recoverable in the trial court’s discretion under CCP section 1033.5(c)(2) if ?reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.? Foothill-De Anza Community College Dist. v. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal. App. 4th 11, 30.
For example, in Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 761, at pages 776 to 777, the Court found that a declaration including facts to show that messenger fees were incurred to file documents with the court, to comply with document demands, and to transport exhibits to and from the courtroom, showed that the messenger fees were reasonably necessary and that the trial court therefore had an adequate basis for allowing these costs under CCP section 1033.5(c)(4).
In the pending case, the Defendants? attorney, Colin McGrath provides facts in paragraphs 2 and 3 to show that the parties discussed settlement and that this led to the parties agreeing to mediation on January 20, 2016. This shows that the mediation fees were incurred to encourage settlement. Accordingly, the $3,600 cost for mediation was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and the Court will favorably exercise its discretion and allow that cost.
Further, Mr. McGrath states facts in his declaration to show that the messenger fees were incurred to file documents with the Court. Mr. McGrath identifies each document and the messenger fees incurred to file the document with the Court in paragraph 6 of his declaration. The facts in the declaration of Mr. McGrath demonstrate that the fees were incurred to deliver papers and to make filings with the Court. This demonstrates that the messenger fees were reasonably necessary and that there are grounds to allow the Defendant to recover them as a cost of this litigation.
The Plaintiffs? papers included no facts to rebut or address the Defendants? evidence.
Accordingly, the Court will deny the request to tax $3,600 cost for the mediation fees and the $1,350.79 cost for messenger fees from item 13.
RULING:
Deny Plaintiffs? motion to tax costs.