RAYMOND VINCENT DIGIACOMO JR. VS. UNION SQUARE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Friday, July 25, 2025, Line 3 [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling]. PLAINTIFF RAYMOND DIGIACOMO's Motion To Tax And Strike Costs.

Plaintiff Raymond DiGiacomo's motion to tax and strike costs is, in large part, DENIED. "Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding." (CCP 1032(b).) A prevailing party includes "a defendant in whose favor dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant." (CCP 1032(a)(4).)

The Union Square defendants seek a total of $3,494.14 in costs following their dismissal from the case in May 2025. DiGiacomo moves to strike costs on grounds that these defendants are not prevailing parties, and that the costs are unreasonable. The court disagrees on both counts.

The Union Square defendants satisfy multiple definitions of prevailing party under subdivision (a)(4). The Union Square defendants were dismissed on May 7, 2025, after an order to show cause hearing regarding Mr. DiGiacomo's failure to post bond. DiGiacomo did not obtain any relief against these defendants.

Further, the claimed costs are reasonable. Defendants' costs incurred delivering courtesy copies via courier were reasonable. It is standard practice to use a courier, and the choice to do so is not an unreasonable luxury. Defendants' costs incurred filing the demurrer and motion to strike were also reasonable. The choice to so was a reasonable strategy, not an unnecessary or redundant litigation tactic. Defendants' costs incurred e-filing their motions were also reasonable.

Plaintiff takes issue with specific filings, such as Defendants' declaration in support of an automatic extension. However, it appears this filing was necessitated by Plaintiff's reluctance to meet and confer. (6/6/23 Declaration of Demurring or Moving Party in support of Automatic Extension ["plaintiff hung up on defendants' counsel... the meet and confer process is not yet complete....].) DiGiacomo also contends the e-filing costs related to the demurrer and motion to strike were unreasonable because those motions were unreasonable. Given the court's findings to the contrary, these derivative arguments fail.

Item 14g, "Notice of Entry of Order, 07/31/2023," however, does not appear to refer to any filing in the register of actions. Thus, the cost of $13.33 is stricken.

Lastly, DiGiacomo claims a page is missing from the memorandum of costs, and that the Defendants' mislabeled "Item 15. Other" as "Item 16 Other" in their attachment. The memorandum of costs appears complete, and the trivial error in numbering the attachment does not render the whole memorandum of costs defective.