Tentative Ruling
Re:? ???? ??????????? ?????????? Rose v. Healthcomp, Inc.?
Case No.? ????? ??????????? 15CECG00163
Hearing Date:? ???????? January 31, 2017 (Dept. 501)
Motion:? ???????? ?????????? By Plaintiff to Tax Defendant Healthcomp, Inc.?s costs.
Tentative Ruling:?
To deny the motion to tax costs.
Costs in the amount of $4,545.04 will be awarded.
Explanation:?
Plaintiff makes a motion to tax costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure ?685.070, subdivision (c) which states:
Within 10 days after the memorandum of costs is served on the judgment debtor, the judgment debtor may apply to the court on noticed motion to have the costs taxed by the court. The notice of motion shall be served on the judgment creditor. Service shall be made personally or by mail. The court shall make an order allowing or disallowing the costs to the extent justified under the circumstances of the case.
Plaintiff argues that the Court should have discretion to award these costs for a variety of reasons, mostly because awarding the costs would be inequitable, and likens this case to a civil rights case where the award of such costs can be discretionary.
However, it is clear that except as ?expressly provided by statute,? the prevailing party is entitled to recover of costs of suit in any action or proceeding ?as a matter of right.?? (Code Civ.Proc. ?1032, subd.(b) (emphasis added); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 605.)
Plaintiff?s attempts to liken this case to cases brought pursuant to FEHA or civil rights statutes are unavailing because statutory basis for the claims in this case do not contain the express statutory authority available in those situations for a conditional award of costs. (See, i.e., Code Civ.Proc. ?1174.2 (certain unlawful detainer actions); Code Civ.Proc. ?1268.710 (eminent domain actions allow only non-governmental agency parties to obtain costs); Civ.Code ?1794, subd.(d) (?lemon law? cases allow only plaintiffs to obtain costs); Gov. Code ?12965, subd.(b) (FEHA cases provide that costs are discretionary).) None of the statutory exceptions appear to be applicable in the present case.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, subdivision (a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: ????????????????MWS???????? on 01/30/17
(Judge?s initials) ?????? (Date)