Guadalupe Renteria Betancourt v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al.

DEPARTMENT M LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Dept. M issues tentative rulings in many, but not all motion hearings. There is no set time at which tentatives are posted. Please do not call the staff to inquire if a tentative will be posted. If parties are satisfied with the ruling, parties may submit on the tentative. However, if an opposing party does not submit, they will be permitted to argue. Please check with the other side before calling the courtroom to submit. The staff does not keep track of which parties submitted and which did not, so please do not ask. If a matter is also a scheduling hearing (CMC, TSC, OSC etc) an appearance is still required even if a party submits on the tentative ruling.

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT? SOUTHWEST DISTRICT Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Monday, May 18, 2026 Department M Calendar No. 20 PROCEEDINGS Guadalupe Renteria Betancourt v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al.

1. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.”s Motion to Tax Costs

American Honda Motor Co., Inc.”s Motion to Tax Costs is granted, in part.

Background

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on October 13, 2022. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff alleges that her 2017 Honda Civic suffers from electrical, engine, and structural system defects. Plaintiff sets forth causes of action under the Song-Beverly Act. Motion to Strike or Tax Costs “Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. If the cost memorandum was served electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section

1010.6(a)(4).” Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(1). “Unless objection is made to the entire cost memorandum, the motion to strike or 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.” Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(2). “If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary.

On the other hand, 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. Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 (internal citation omitted). “The memorandum of costs shall 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.

Initial verification will suffice to establish the reasonable necessity of the costs claimed. There is no requirement that copies of bills, invoices, statements, or any other such documents be attached to the memorandum. Only if the costs have been put in issue via a motion to tax costs must supporting documentation be submitted. Once this occurs, the issue becomes whether the required documentation must be of evidentiary quality. Rule 870(a)(1) does not specify the type of documentation required.”

Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267. Defendant moves for an order to tax Plaintiff’s costs. The motion is “made on the grounds that certain costs requested by Plaintiff are not allowable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 et seq., are unsupported by documentation, and/or are not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and therefore should be stricken or taxed.” (Notice of Motion, p. 2, lines 1-4.) As to the two deposition cancellation fees of $350 each ($700), the Court determines that the costs were not reasonably incurred and strikes these items.

The depositions were cancelled by Plaintiff on the day of deposition, and those costs should not be attributable to or payable by Defendant. Expert fees and reasonable expenses are recoverable items of costs under CC § 1794(d). Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 137-138. Here, Plaintiff’s expert Darrell Blasjo charged the following which Defendant now seeks to tax: $83.66 for a hotel room in Fremont, California; $2,589.36 for attending Defendant’s inspection of the vehicle; $1,240 and $2,375.50 for preparing for depositions which never took place.

Plaintiff provided no argument to justify the cost for the hotel room in Fremont, California. The Court strikes $83.66. As to the cost to attend the vehicle inspection, while this expense may have been necessary for the expert’s preparation of this case, the Court determines that the amount is excessive for simply observing the

inspection. The Court reduces the amount allowed to $1,500.00. As to the preparation expenses for expert’s depositions that did not take place, Plaintiff submitted no competent evidence to controvert Defendant’s evidence explaining that, while discussions were taking place back and forth regarding the timing of the depositions, the deposition were never actually noticed to take place. Preparation costs for depositions that were not even firmly noticed and on calendar are not reasonable or necessary.

The Court strikes both the $1,240.00 and $2,375.50 costs. Therefore, the memorandum of costs is reduced as follows: $700.00; $83.66; $1,089.36; $1,240.00; $2,375.50, for a total reduction of $5,488.02. Thus, amount of costs in the memorandum of costs is reduced from $19,004.51 to $13,516.49. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling. . Case Number: 25TRCV02434 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 Dept: M LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT? SOUTHWEST DISTRICT Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Monday, May 18, 2026 Department M Calendar No. 19 PROCEEDINGS Catherine Hauenstein, et al. v.

WD Contractor Services, et al. 25TRCV02434 1. Lee Hutton III?s Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice TENTATIVE RULING Lee Hutton III?s Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is granted.

Background

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on July 23, 2025. Plaintiffs allege the following facts. Defendants performed construction work at Plaintiffs’ residence and left unsecured tarps covering construction materials. Plaintiff Catherine Hauerstein tripped and fell on the unsecured plastic tarps. Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40 states, in relevant part:?(d) The application must state: (1) The applicant's residence and office address; (2) The courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) That the applicant is a licensee in good standing in those courts; (4) That the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) The title of each court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or