Motion to Strike and Tax Costs
Before the Court is the “Motion to Strike and Tax Costs” filed on 12/1/25 by Plaintiff Carlos Padilla III (“Plaintiff”), directed to the Memorandum of Costs (“MOC”) filed on 11/17/25 by Defendant Tara Jakubaitis (“Ms. Jakubaitis”). The Motion is GRANTED IN PART.
If 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. But if 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.) Here, Plaintiff has presented challenges concerning Categories 1, 5 and 15 in the MOC.
On Category 1, the MOC initially claimed $2,440, but Ms. Jakubaitis has since withdrawn a portion of that claim, and now seeks only $1,940. (ROA 3226, Ex. D.) For the items remaining, Plaintiff has failed to show that those costs were not reasonably incurred. The Motion is therefore GRANTED IN PART, to allow the reduced sum of $1,940 for this category.
On Category 5, most of the charges were for personal service on counsel, which has not been shown to have been reasonably necessary, or for postage and fax charges which are not recoverable. (C.C.P. § 1033.5(b)(3); Ladas v. California State Automobile Ass’n, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 773-774.) The Motion is therefore GRANTED IN PART to allow only the reduced sum of $385 for this category (for the $85, $55, and $245 charges claimed for third party subpoenas).
On Category 15, Ms. Jakubaitis has presented evidence to show that she in fact paid the sum claimed for referee charges, which had been billed to her personally. (ROA 3224, ¶ 15, Ex. N.) The Motion is therefore DENIED for this category.
The total sum that Ms. Jakubaitis may recover for costs here is therefore $5,500.80. Plaintiff has asked that this sum be offset against sanctions awards that Ms. Jakubaitis failed to pay. But Plaintiff presented no evidence as to such sanctions, and no authority demonstrating that the Court may do so. That request is therefore denied, without prejudice. Ms. Jakubaitis’ evidentiary objections, filed at ROA 3221, are SUSTAINED as to ¶ 3 of the Shirdel Decl. [hearsay, relevance], but otherwise OVERRULED.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiff’s objection, asserted in the reply as to Ms. Jakubaitis’ “Ex. D,” is OVERRULED; the exhibit may be considered as evidence of the portions of Category 1 in the MOC which have been withdrawn.
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice, filed as ROA 3215, is GRANTED IN PART, as to the existence of Items 7 and 9, under Ev. Code §452(d), but otherwise DENIED, for lack of apparent relevance.
The clerk is to give notice of this ruling.