Wesley Leonard Pastorius vs. General Motors, LLC

34-2022-00328432-CU-BC-GDS: Wesley Leonard Pastorius vs. General Motors, LLC 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs in Department 16D

list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Tentative Ruling:

Defendant General Motors LLC's ('Defendant') motion to strike or tax costs is ruled upon as follows.

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties must at the time oral argument is requested notify the clerk and opposing party of the specific cost items that will be addressed at the hearing. The parties are also reminded that pursuant to local Court rules, only limited oral argument is permitted on law and motion matters.***

The notice of motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1010 or Rules of Court, rule 3.1110 (a), requiring the moving party to state the grounds for the motion presented.

Background

This is a Lemon Law action arising from Plaintiff Wesley Leonard Pastorius’ (“Plaintiff”) purchase of a 2021 GMC Sierra 1500. Plaintiff initiated this action on October 14, 2022. On January 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement. On December 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs.

Defendant now moves to “strike or tax the memorandum of costs.” (See generally, Notice of Motion.)

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (b), provides: “[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.” “A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and

34-2022-00328432-CU-BC-GDS: Wesley Leonard Pastorius vs. General Motors, LLC 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs in Department 16D

file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment . . . .” (Rules of Court, rule 3.1700, subd. (a)(1).) “Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum.” (Rules of Court, rule 3.1700, subd. (b)(1).)

“If items on a memorandum of costs appear to be proper charges on their face, those items are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services are proper and necessarily incurred. [citations.] The burden then shifts to the objecting party to show them to be unnecessary or unreasonable.” (Doe v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 675, 693.) “In ruling upon a motion to tax costs, the trial court's first determination is whether the statute expressly allows the particular item and whether it appears proper on its face. ‘If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show [the costs] to be unnecessary or unreasonable.’ [citation.]” (Foothill-De Anza Community College Dist. v.

Emerich (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 29.) “[T]he mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a ‘proper objection’ to an item, the necessity of which appears doubtful, or which does not appear to be proper on its face. [citation.] However, ‘[i]f the items appear to be proper charges, the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred by the defendant [citations], and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the [objecting party].’” (Nelson v.

Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.)

Discussion

Defendant challenges $2,231.92 of the $2,776.28 in costs claimed by Plaintiff, grouped as follows.

Filing and motion fees. Plaintiff seeks $1,684.44 for filing and motion fees. Defendant challenges $1,170.08 of these claimed costs, which Defendant argues are associated with Plaintiff’s “various motion and court filings (motions to compel, notice of changes of address, “CMS & Jury Fee Adv.”, notice of ruling, notice of non-opposition, “Stipulation to Appoint CSR”, notice of remote appearance, Stipulation & Protective Order, Notices of Conditional Settlement).” (Moving MPA at 4:21-24.) Defendant contends these costs should be stricken for two reasons.

Defendant first argues that Plaintiff’s motion costs “were optional costs that Counsel elected, where the motion was entirely one-sided and completely unnecessary” and that Defendant should not be required to reimburse these “optional” costs since Defendant had previously indicated its willingness to “supplement its responses within the scope of the facts and allegations and relevant to Plaintiff’s Complaint.” (Id., at 4:23-26.) Second, Defendant argues Plaintiff “should not be allowed to recover for the filing fees related to Counsel’s notices, stipulations, and case

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00328432-CU-BC-GDS: Wesley Leonard Pastorius vs. General Motors, LLC 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs in Department 16D

management statements” because these are “general overhead costs” which are “not properly billable to clients.” (Id., at 4:26-5:2.)

Section 1033.5 subdivision (a)(1) allows for costs related to “filing, motion, and jury fees.” Thus, in regards to Defendant’s first argument, the costs associated with the motion to compel appear proper on their face. The Court finds Defendant has not met its burden to show these costs are unnecessary or unreasonable. Indeed, Defendant concedes the motions were not entirely without merit and Defendant's contention that the motions were “optional costs that Counsel elected, where the motion practice was entirely one-sided” is conclusory and unsupported by any evidence.

Turning to Defendant’s second argument, the Court disagrees that the “notices, stipulations and case management statements” are a general overhead cost which are not recoverable. Indeed, Defendant set no authority to support its contention that these costs are properly characterized as a “general overhead cost.” Moreover, in regard to the notice of settlement, Plaintiff was required by the Rules of Court to file a notice of settlement with the Court. (See Rule of Court, rule 3.1385.) Accordingly, Defendant has failed to meet its burden as to these costs and thus the Court DENIES Defendant’s request to strike and/or tax any of the filing and motion fee costs sought by Plaintiff.

Jury fees. Plaintiff seeks $150.00 in costs for “jury fees.” Defendant contends this cost is not recoverable because the case did not proceed to trial. (Moving MPA at 5:2-3.) The Court rejects this argument since a jury fee deposit is required to avoid a waiver of the right to a jury trial and because jury fees are recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(1) regardless of whether the case proceeds to trial.

Service of Process. Plaintiff seeks $234.84 in costs related to service of process. Defendant argues that these costs are associated with Plaintiff’s deposition notices and/or subpoenas to third party Elk Gove. (Moving MPA at 5:4-6.) The Court declines to strike or tax this cost item since it is expressly recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 subdivision (a)(4) and as Defendant has failed to demonstrate that these costs “did absolutely nothing to advance Plaintiffs’ case.” (Id., at 5:5-8.)

Other. Plaintiff seeks $677.00 in “other” costs. Defendant challenges the entirety of this cost arguing that it should not be required to reimburse Plaintiff for “$525.00 for a court reporter to record the hearing on Plaintiff’s motions to compel which is an unnecessary costs [sic]” and that it should not be required to “reimburse $152.00 in costs incurred for courtesy copies of the unnecessary motions and notice of non-opposition.” On reply, Defendant argues that court reporter fees are only recoverable when established by statute and that because there “was no order or legal requirement that Plaintiff procure

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00328432-CU-BC-GDS: Wesley Leonard Pastorius vs. General Motors, LLC 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs in Department 16D

a reporter” the Court should disallow this cost. (See Reply at 4:16-25.)

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the “court reporter was necessary in order to have a certified record to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to challenge a holding should an error occur. GM’s subjective opinion of necessity is irrelevant as, objectively, this cost was incurred in order to protect Plaintiff’s rights in this litigation and ensure that recourse was available if necessary.” (Opposition at 6:2-6.) Plaintiff further argues that the discovery motions were made necessary by GM’s noncompliance and that “[a]ll costs associated with these motions and required for proper service and filing, and to comply with the Court’s own rules, are recoverable.” (Id., at 6:9-10.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 allows for “court reporter fees as established by statute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5 subd. (a)(11).) Government Code section 68086 imposes a fee of $30 for each proceeding anticipated to last one hour or less and a fee equal to the actual cost of providing the service for proceedings lasting more than one hour. (Gov. Code, § 68086 subd.(a)(1) & (2).) Accordingly, the Court finds that these costs appear proper on their face. The Court further finds Defendant has not met its burden to show these costs are unnecessary or unreasonable as Defendant's argument that the underlying discovery motions were not necessary is unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Court declines to strike $525.00 in “other” costs for the court reporter services.

In regard to the $152.00 in costs incurred for courtesy copies of motion papers, the Court agrees with Defendant that it is not liable for these costs. While Plaintiff’s opposition generally argues that “all costs” were required for proper service or filing, Plaintiff fails to specifically address defendant’s contention or clarify what this cost item is claimed to represent. Accordingly, the Court will not award $152.00 for courtesy copies.

Evidentiary Ruling

The Court declines to rule on Plaintiff’s Objections to the Declaration of Gregory Gruszecki as it was immaterial to the outcome of this motion.

Disposition

For the aforementioned reasons, the motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall be entitled to recover “costs and expenses” in the amount of $2,624.28 (i.e., total costs claimed in the Memorandum of Costs [$2,776.28] – $152.00).

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00328432-CU-BC-GDS: Wesley Leonard Pastorius vs. General Motors, LLC 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs in Department 16D

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)