Maria Andrade v. Central Valley Sanitation Inc.

Failure to Utilize Judicial Council Form MC-011

Plaintiffs move to strike the entirety of Fowler’s costs as being facially deficient. Plaintiffs argue that Fowler failed to provide a memorandum of costs worksheet, namely Judicial Council Form MC-011. (Plaintiffs’ Moving Papers, pg. 5, lns. 12-24.) The court notes that the form itself specifically provides that it is “for optional use.” Thus, the court does not find this argument persuasive.

Plaintiffs also move to strike Fowler’s costs for lack of itemization. (Id.) However, plaintiffs’ argument misconstrues the law, as such requirements are only imposed after there has been a timely objection to the memorandum of costs. (Ladas, supra19 Cal.App.4th at, 774, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2).)

Since the court finds that plaintiffs’ timely objected to Fowler’s memorandum of costs, the court now considers whether Fowler’s requested costs are proper.

Recovery Limited to $15,011.65

“A party’s right to recover costs is governed entirely by statute. [Citation.]” (Boonyarit v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1192.) “To obtain costs, a party must comply with the applicable rules of court. [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1034 states, in part: “Prejudgment costs allowable under this chapter shall be claimed and contested in accordance with rules adopted by the Judicial Council.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §1034, subd. (a).) Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 provides, in part, that ‘[n]othing in this section shall prohibit the parties from stipulating to alternative procedures for awarding costs in the litigation pursuant to rules adopted under Section 1034.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §1032(c).)

“A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first. The memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case.” (CRC, rule 3.1700(a)(1).) Thus, the entry of a dismissal or judgment is a predicate to a costs award. (Boonyarit v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1192.)

Here, Motion for Summary Judgment was granted by the Court, and Notice of Entry of Judgment was entered on March 24, 2026. Fowler filed Fowler filed its Memo of Cost on March 25, 2026.

However, in its Opposition, Fowler raised its total costs claimed to $16,786.66, broken down as follows: $1,366.14 (filing fees), $13,983.45 (depositions), $340.68 (hotels), $387.18 (mileage), and $709.21 (subpoenas). (Fowler’s Opposition Papers, pg. 2, lns. 14- 20; Hippo Decl. ¶¶ 5-9.) The costs claimed for depositions increased by $1270.72. The amount requested for “other” costs increased by $504.29. Because the Opposition was 4

filed on April 24, 2026, more than 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment, the $1,775.01 additional claimed costs are untimely, and will not be allowed.

However, in its Opposition, Fowler raised its total costs claimed to $16,786.66, broken down as follows: $1,366.14 (filing fees), $13,983.45 (depositions), $340.68 (hotels), $387.18 (mileage), and $709.21 (subpoenas). (Fowler’s Opposition Papers, pg. 2, lns. 14- 20; Hippo Decl. ¶¶ 5-9.) The costs claimed for depositions increased by $1270.72. The amount requested for “other” costs increased by $504.29. Because the Opposition was filed on April 24, 2026, more than 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment, the $1,775.01 additional claimed costs are untimely, and will not be allowed.

Incurred Bills

Plaintiffs claim that copies of unpaid invoices cannot serve as evidence of incurred costs, and that Fowler was required to submit proof of payment. (Plaintiffs’ Reply, pgs. 4-5, lns. 1-28, 1-14.) This is not the law.

Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032, subdivision (b) provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(2) provides that “An award of costs shall be subject to the following: ... (2) Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.”

The Court disagrees. Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(1) states that “[c]osts are allowable if incurred, whether or not paid.” [Emphasis added.]

Filing Fees and Non-Vendor Charges

Plaintiffs argue that Fowler’s $1,366.14 “filing and motion fees” should be reduced by $21.14 pertaining to “Payment Processing” fees; $65.00 fee pertaining to a “Concierge E Filing” fees with respect to Fowler filing its Motion for Summary Judgment, and a second $65.00 fee pertaining to a “Concierge E Filing” with respect to Fowler filing its reply to the Motion for Summary judgment, totaling $151.14. (Plaintiffs' Reply Papers, pg. 7, lns. 16-23.)

Filing fees are recoverable. (Code Civ. Proc., §1033.5(a)(1).) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(g), documents filed by represented parties in all civil, family law, and probate actions must be filed electronically unless the Court excuses parties from doing so. Thus, the costs associated with the credit card fees and “Concierge E Filing” fees were necessary to the conduct of litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., 1033.5(c)(2).) Therefore, the Court declines to tax these costs.

Other Costs

As discussed above, Fowler now seeks $1,437.07 in “other costs” comprised of mileage costs of $387.18, hotel expenses of $340.68, and costs to subpoena records in the amount of $709.21. (Jennifer Hippo, Decl. ¶¶ 7-9.) This represents an additional $504.29 5

in costs that will be excluded. Furthermore, plaintiffs move to strike the entirely of some these items. Accordingly, each will be analyzed in turn.

The $709.21 in Subpoena/Records Costs

Plaintiffs make three independent arguments as to why the $709.21 of costs pertaining to subpoenaing records should be struck. The Court has already addressed the first argument that unpaid bills are allowable as costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(1).

Plaintiffs next argue that costs associated with United Health Centers and the Fresno County Coroner should be stricken because Fowler provides no proof that these charges were incurred, as part of the 4th Exhibit to Jennifer Hippo’s declaration. However, this argument is moot. In tallying the receipts in the 4th Exhibit to Jennifer Hippo’s declaration, the Court found a total of $785.41, which is $76.20 above the $709.21 claimed.

Finally, plaintiffs argue that because Fowler did not initially identify these costs, they should be struck. (Plaintiffs’ Reply Papers, pg. 7, lns. 6-11.) However, Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(4) provides the Court discretion for “items not mentioned in this section and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court’s discretion.” Given the nature of this matter, the Court finds the costs associated with Exhibit 4 to Jennifer Hippo’s declaration, reasonable and necessary, in the claimed amount of $709.21.

Hotel Costs

Fowler claims Hotel expenses in the amount of $340.68, and necessary to prepare both for their depositions and to attend them the next day. (Fowler’s Opposition Papers, pgs. 2-3, lns. 21-28, 1-3.) However, based on Fowler’s oppositiononly $223.57 of expenses can be claimed by Fowler from the initial $932.78 of “Other Expenses” Fowler sought, as $709.21 has already been allocated to costs associated with subpoenaing records

Plaintiffs’ arguments to reduce “sundry” expenses are moot at this point, as they do not tally more than $117.11, which is the difference between the hotel costs of $340.68 sought and the remaining costs of $223.57 that Fowler can clam based on the memorandum of costs Fowler filed on March 25, 2026.

Accordingly, Fowler is entitled to $223.57 pertaining to hotel costs.

Remaining Costs

Remaining costs are in excess of the $932.78 of “Other Expenses” Fowler sought. Accordingly, arguments pertaining to these other costs will not be addressed.

Accordingly, Fowler is limited to costs of $15,011.65.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(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: lmg on 5-13-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

7