TORRES v. HONDA

TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR June 22, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.

You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).

If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.

If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.

You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE

RULING.

TORRES v. HONDA

TENTATIVE RULING(S):

On January 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs seeking costs of $1,739.92. Before

the Court is Defendant Honda’s motion to strike or tax Plaintiff’s costs. The issue has been fully

briefed.

Analysis

Honda argues that Plaintiff’s entire Memorandum of Costs should be stricken because

Plaintiff did not include any receipts or other evidence in support of the Memorandum of Costs.

Honda seeks to tax the following individual costs: (1) $837.42 in motion filing fees because

Plaintiff did not provide receipts and $72.00 is included in the amount for remote appearance

fees that are not recoverable; (2) the $150.00 jury fees posted by Plaintiff because no trial

occurred; and (3) $722.50 in deposition costs because Plaintiff did not provide receipts or

invoices showing the costs were incurred.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that there is no requirement that copies of bills or invoices

accompany a Memorandum of Costs. Such documentation is only required if the costs are put at

issue by a motion to tax. (Jones v. Dumrichob, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1266.) Plaintiff is

correct on the law and Honda’s request to strike the entirety of Plaintiff’s memorandum is denied.

Plaintiff further argues that all costs claimed were necessary to the litigation and provides a

declaration with invoices showing the amounts of the fees and costs incurred. Plaintiff argues

that Honda has failed to meet its burden to show that any of the fees or costs are unreasonable

or unnecessary.

On reply, Honda argues that Plaintiff does not establish that the $72.00 paid to remotely

appear at a hearing is recoverable as a filing or motion fee. Further, Honda argues for the first

time a $65.00 priority filing fee should be taxed because Plaintiff did not establish the

reasonableness of the cost. Finally, Honda asserts that the $150.00 jury fee paid by Plaintiff

should be taxed because the fees were not used for food and lodging of the jury under Code of

Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (2) and because the is refundable from the Court

because the trial did not occur.

Based on the above, the Court tax $150.00 Plaintiff paid in jury fees. As Honda correctly

asserts, the jury fees paid by Plaintiff were refundable under Code of Civil Procedure section

631.3, subdivision (a), upon settlement of the litigation. As such, the fees are not reasonable or

necessarily given that the matter did not proceed to trial and Plaintiff was able to recover the

fees.

As to the remaining fees, if a buyer prevails on a Beverely-Song claim he is entitled to

recover costs and expenses. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).) “Expenses” under the statute allow

a buyer to recover items not recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5’s

definition of costs. (Warren v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 42.)

Nonetheless, the recoverable cost or expense must be reasonably incurred in connection with

the commencement or prosecution of the action. (Civ. Code, §1794, subd. (d); Jensen v. BMW

of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 138.) Plaintiffs’ remote appearance fee and

priority filing fee were incurred in the prosecution of this action and Honda has not shown that

they were unreasonable or unnecessary.

Thus, the Court grants Honda’s motion to tax costs in the amount of $150.00 reflecting

the refundable jury fees paid by Plaintiffs.

RULING

For all the reasons stated above, the Court Grants Defendant American Honda Motor

Company, Inc.’s motion to tax costs in part and denied in part. The Court tax $150.00 from

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs.