Kayar vs. HJC Corp.

Accordingly, the court continues the demurrer and motion to strike so that Defendants may properly serve Plaintiff with the moving papers, and that Defendants may attempt to meet and confer in compliance with Sections 430.41(a) and 435.5(a).

Defendants shall file their updated proof of service no later than 5 calendar days before the continued hearing date.

Defendants shall give notice. 9 Kayar vs. Defendant HJC Corporation moves to tax costs on appeal claimed by Plaintiff Melih Kayar. HJC Corp. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall recover $5,924.42 in appellate costs.

As an initial matter, the court finds Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Appellate Costs and Defendant HJC Corporation’s Motion to Tax Appellate Costs to be timely filed and served pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1700 and 8.278. (ROA # 262, 276, 278.)

Standard on Motions to Tax or Strike Costs

A prevailing party is usually entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1032(b).) The items recoverable as costs on appeal are prescribed exclusively by California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(d)(1). No other costs are recoverable. (Stratton v. Beck (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 901, 910.)

If the items on a verified memorandum of costs appear to be proper charges, the memorandum is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and the burden is on the party contesting them to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. (Foothill-De Anza Comm. College Dist. v. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 29; Wagner Farms, Inc. v. Modesto Irrigation Dist. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 765, 773-774.) The party challenging costs does not meet this burden by arguing that the costs were not necessary or reasonable but must present evidence and prove that the costs are not recoverable. (Seever v.

Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557; see also Wagner Farms, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th at pp.777-778.) If the claimed items are not expressly allowed by statute and are objected to by a motion to strike or tax costs, the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs to show that the charges were reasonable and necessary. (Foothill- De Anza Comm. College Dist., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 29.) Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation is a question of fact for the court to determine. (Id. at pp. 29-30.)

Challenged Appellate Costs

Item 3. Preparation of reporter’s transcript.

Plaintiff seeks costs in the amount of $6,579.50 for preparation of the reporter’s transcript.

Defendants contend the only expense recoverable under Rule 8.278(d) is the $130 paid to this Court on 03/15/24. In response, Plaintiff contends the costs include the transcripts for the 01/11/24 hearing on the motion to quash as well the “PMQ deposition transcripts of

Dave Bertram and George Hong,” were necessary to assemble and file the mandatory Appellant’s Appendix. (Declaration of Brendan M. Ford, ¶ 5.) In the reply, Defendant concedes the $1,583.40 for the hearing transcripts are recoverable and also concedes “portions of the George Hong and Dave Betram transcripts are part of the appellate record.” (Reply, p. 1.)

Under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(d) costs are recoverable, if reasonable, in “[t]he amount the party paid for any portion of the record, whether an original or a copy or both. The cost to copy parts of a prior record under rule 8.147(b)(2) is not recoverable unless the Court of Appeal ordered the copying.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(d)(1)(B) [emphasis added]; see also Alan S. v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 238, 261 [holding the rule “makes no reference to necessity as a fact in what part of the appellate record is recoverable as a cost”].) This includes not only the costs of a reporter’s and/or clerk’s transcript but also the costs an appendix in lieu of clerk’s transcript, prepared pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.124. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278, Adv. Comm. Comment.)

Plaintiff does not show the $2,109.45 in costs for the deposition transcript of defendant Michael Quach to be recoverable. (Costs Memorandum, Ex. 3.) Plaintiff does not show this deposition was included in the appendix or that the cost was otherwise necessary and reasonable.

The court hereby TAXES $2,109.45 of the costs claimed in Item 3.

Item 4. Printing and Copying of Briefs

Plaintiff claims $3,640.25 in printing and copying costs.

Under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(d), recoverable costs include, if reasonable, “[t]he cost to print and reproduce any brief, including any petition for rehearing or review, answer, or reply.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(d)(1)(E).) “Reasonable costs” of reproducing briefs by an authorized method are recoverable even though a less expensive method of production was available. “The only requirements . . . are that the cost be actually incurred and that it be reasonable.” (Johnson v. Workers’ Compensation App. Bd. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 235, 243 [“fact that the brief could have been . . . produced by some other process, at a less costs is not controlling”].)

Defendant argues these charges and invoices are not related to printing and copying of appellate briefs, which were submitted electronically by the parties to the Court of Appeal rather than in paper form. Plaintiff does not meet the shifted burden to show these costs were incurred for printing and copying of briefs related to the appeal. (See Ford Decl. ¶ 7.)

The court hereby TAXES $3,640.25 of the claimed costs in Item 4.

Items 5 and 9 (Production of Additional Evidence and Other)

Plaintiff claims $3,144.31 in costs for these categories.

Defendant challenges these claimed costs as unrelated to the appeal or improper.

Plaintiff does not oppose the motion as to Item nos. 5 and 9 and, thus, concedes the issue. (See, e.g., DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566 [“By failing to argue the contrary, plaintiffs concede this issue”]; Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 23, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 507, 529 [“failure to address the threshold question ... effectively concedes that issue and renders its remaining arguments moot”; Glendale Redevelopment Agency v. Parks (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1424 [issue is impliedly conceded by failing to address it].)

The court hereby TAXES $3,144.31 of the costs claimed in Items 5 and 9.

Item 6 (Transmitting, Filing, and Serving of Record, Briefs, and Other Papers)

Plaintiff claims $1,217.10 in this category.

Defendant challenges all but $200.60 in claimed costs as unrelated to the transmission, filing, and service of appellate papers.

Plaintiff does not oppose the motion as to Item 6, thereby conceding the issue. (See, e.g., DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566.)

The court hereby TAXES $1,016.50 in costs claimed in Item 6.

In sum, Plaintiff SHALL RECOVER $5,924.42 in appellate costs.

Plaintiff to give notice. 10 City of San Plaintiff City of San Clemente’s Motion for Appointment of a Receiver is CONTINUED to Clemente, December 17, 2026 at 01:30 PM in Department C10. a California municipal corporation Judicial Notice: The City’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to Nos. 1–3, 5–6, 9, vs. Mark R. 17, and 18; and DENIED as to Nos. 4, 7–8, and 10–16. Middlebroo k and Motion for Receivership: The City moves for an order: Fadia K. Middlebroo k, Trustees 1. Declaring the conditions on the parcel of real property known as 421 Via of the Alegre, San Clemente, California 92672, Assessor’s Parcel Number (“APN”) 691- Mark And F 272-18 (“Subject Property”) are substandard, violate State and local laws and adia that such violations are so extensive and of such a nature that the health and Middlebroo k safety of the property’s owner, residents, neighbors, community, the public, Family And and any occupants is substantially and imminently endangered.

Special 2. Appointing Richardson Griswold (“Receiver”) as the Court’s receiver over Neess the Subject Property pursuant to Health and Safety Code (“HSC”) section Trust Of 17980.7, subdivision (c). 2012 3. Granting Receiver the authority to manage and oversee the rehabilitation of the Subject Property pursuant to HSC section 17980.7, subdivision (c)(4) and Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 568.

32