SARAH SANDOVAL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC25622945 - June 22, 2026 Hearing date: June 22, 2026 Case number: CGC25622945 Case title: SARAH SANDOVAL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25622945 | Case Title: | | SARAH SANDOVAL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-06-22 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Strike Or Tax Costs; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Monday, June 22, 2026, Line 9, PLAINTIFF SARAH SANDOVAL, AN INDIVIDUAL'S Notice Of Motion And Motion To Strike Or Tax Costs.

Plaintiff Sarah Sandoval's motion to tax costs is denied. "Code of Civil Procedure section 1033 enumerates allowable costs and costs which are not allowable, and restricts allowable costs to those reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation." (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 129.) "To recover a cost, it must be reasonably necessary to the litigation and reasonable in amount." (Thon v. Thompson (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1548.) Generally, if a cost item appears proper on its face, the burden is on the challenging party to prove it is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable. (Nelson, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th, at p. 131.)

But "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." (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) Ultimately, whether a cost item was reasonably necessary is a question of fact, but the court has no authority to award costs that are not authorized by statute. (Id.)

The motion is denied as to defendant the City and County of San Francisco's filing fees. As a government entity, the City does not pay filing fees. (Gov. Code, Section 6103.) But, pursuant to statute, the court is required to enter judgment against the nonprevailing party for the amount of the filing fee: "Whenever a judgment is recovered by a public agency named in Section 6103 . . ., which under the provisions of Section 6103 no fee for any official service rendered by the clerk of the court, . . . has been paid, . . . the clerk entering the judgment shall include as a part of the judgment the amount of the filing fee, designating it as such. . . ." (Id., Section 6103.5, subd. (a).) The filing fees are payable to the clerk rather than to the prevailing party. (Id., subd. (b).) The City's cost bill properly directs plaintiff to pay filing fees directly to the court.

The motion is denied as to the City's court reporter fees. The cost of creating an official record is an allowable and customary fee that the court finds reasonably necessary to the litigation. (See, e.g., Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 855 [affirming denial of motion to tax court reporter fees following summary judgment].) There is no evidence before the court that the hearing in question was not reported or that the court reporter would have billed for less than a half day.

The motion is denied as to the fee to participate in the ex parte hearing by CourtCall. This court uses CourtCall for ex parte hearings and the City's motion adequately substantiates that this was a reasonable and necessary cost of litigation. (Part 1 of 2, tentative ruling continues in next entry) | |