DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CIVSB2406055·sanbernardino·Civil·Motion to Tax Costs
Hearing 20 days agoMixed: Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike or Tax Costs as to Defendant Providence Group, Inc. is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Strike or Tax Costs as to Defendants 2018 N. Del Rosa Avenue Propco, LLC and Providence Group of Southern California, LLC is GRANTED.

Padilla v. Del Rosa Villaidence OPCO, LLC et al

Motion to Strike or Tax Costs

Hearing date
Aug 4, 2026
Department
S37
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Tax Costs rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,854.19$344.28$225

Parties

PlaintiffPadilla
DefendantDel Rosa Villaidence OPCO, LLC
Defendant2018 N. Del Rosa Avenue PROPCO, LLC
DefendantProvidence Group, Inc.
DefendantProvidence Group of Southern California, LLC

Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR August 4, 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.

Padilla v. Del Rosa Villaidence OPCO, LLC et al

Before the Court is Plaintiff Padilla’s Motion to Strike or Tax Costs, filed March 13, 2026,

directed to Defendants 2018 N. Del Rosa Avenue PROPCO, LLC, Providence Group, Inc. and Providence

Group of Southern California, LLC’s Memoranda of Costs filed February 27, 2026. The Court considered

the motion under CCP §§ 1032, 1033.5, and CRC 3.1700.

Defendants did not file opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike or Tax Costs.

After review of the parties’ papers and the governing authorities, the Court rules as follows.

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike or Tax Costs as to Defendant Providence Group, Inc. is DENIED in

its entirety:

Item 4 (Depositions): Providence Group, Inc. incurred $1,854.19 for seven depositions: Luke McDermott,

Brenna Gudino, Tracie Orwig, Misty Barrios, Olivia Hall, Jose Sencion Padilla, and Ruben Sencion. The

Court finds these depositions reasonably necessary in the conduct of this litigation. Plaintiff’s objections re

lating to any expedited transcripts are overruled because Providence Group, Inc. is not requesting

expedited transcript charges.

Item 5 (Service of Process): Providence Group, Inc. incurred $344.28 to obtain medical records from

Arrowhead Regional Medical and Redland Community Hospital. The Court finds these expenses

reasonable necessary in the conduct of litigation.

Item 12 (Interpreter Fees): Providence Group, Inc. incurred $225 for language interpretation of deponent J

ose Sencion Padilla. The Court finds this expense reasonable and necessary.

Interpreter fees are reasonable and necessary where needed in taking deposition testimony.

Item 14 (Electronic Filing Fees): Defendant Providence Group, Inc. is not seeking electronic filing fees; th

us, Plaintiff’s motion to tax is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Strike or Tax Costs as to Defendants 2018 N. Del Rosa Avenue

Propco, LLC and Providence Group of Southern California, LLC is GRANTED in its entirety

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share