C S vs. DOE 1

(C) The cost to produce additional evidence on appeal; (D) The costs to notarize, serve, mail, and file the record, briefs, and other papers; (E) The cost to print and reproduce any brief, including any petition for rehearing or review, answer, or reply; (F) The cost to procure a surety bond, including the premium, the cost to obtain a letter of credit as collateral, and the fees and net interest expenses incurred to borrow funds to provide security for the bond or to obtain a letter of credit, unless the trial court determines the bond was unnecessary; and (G) The fees and net interest expenses incurred to borrow funds to deposit with the superior court in lieu of a bond or undertaking, unless the trial court determines the deposit was unnecessary.

If the 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. (Ladas v. California State Automotive Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-774.) On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. (Id.) Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Id.) "[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].' [Citations.]" (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) A party contesting costs must state why the contested item is objectionable. (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700(b)(2)).

Factual recitals rather than mere conclusions are required. Conclusory allegations that the item was "neither necessary nor reasonable" do not satisfy the objecting party's burden. (County of Ker v. Ginn (1983) 146 Cal_App.3d 1107, 1113-1114; Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266). "[W]hen the correctness of the memorandum is challenged, either in whole or in part, by the affidavit or other evidence of the contesting party, the burden is then upon the party claiming the costs to show by competent and satisfactory evidence that the items charged as costs were for matters and things necessarily relevant and material to the issues involved in the action." (Whitaker v.

Moran (1914) 23 Cal.App. 758, 761 cited by Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal. App. 2d 678, 699.) Category No.

1. Filing fees Plaintiff claims a filing fee cost of $775.00 and supports this cost with a email receipt from the Court of Appeals where the amount is $775.00 The email attached is partially redacted. Defendant moves to tax this cost claiming there is no way of knowing what the charge was for due to the redaction. However, a review of the Court of Appeals website under fees demonstrates that the filing of a Notice or Motion for Appeal-Civil is $775.00. Consequently, the motion to tax this cost is denied. This cost is expressly provided for by California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subd. (1)(d)(1)(A). Category No.

6. Transmitting, filing and serving of record, briefs and other papers Plaintiff claims $852.70 in costs for transmitting, filing, and serving record, briefs, and other papers. Plaintiff submits documentation to support $789.70. The Court notes this appears to amount to a $63.00 discrepancy. Defendant challenges the fees for the filings costs regarding the amended oral argument questionnaire (dated 8-14-25), authorization (dated 5-16-25), notice of substitution of attorney (dated 12-16-25), notice of substitution of attorney (dated 10-13-25) Letter to appellate court regarding attorney coverage dated 11-14-24) and an extension to file. The costs associated with these filings amount to $63.00. Plaintiff notes, and the Court agrees, that these filing costs allowed under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subd. (1)(d)(1)(D). The Court will not tax these costs.

Defendant also seeks to tax the Nationwide Legal, LLC claimed costs for receipts dated June 25, 2024 in the amount of $215, receipt dated June 22, 2024, in the amount of $44.95, and receipt dated May 28, 2025, in the amount of $16.45. The total of the challenged amount is $276.40. Again, these costs appear proper as to the costs associated with filing documents necessary to effectuate the appeal, as permitted under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subd. (1)(d)(1)(D). As noted above, however, the Court finds a $63 discrepancy and therefore will tax this category in the amount of $63. Category No.

9. Other Defendants seek to strike this entire category as lacking express authorization for recovery under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subd. (1)(d)(1)(A)-(D). In the alternative, they specifically move to tax $2,994.97 of the $3,078.28. Plaintiff, in opposition, categorizes each of the claimed costs as recoverable pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subd. (1)(d)(1)(C) as costs to produce additional evidence on appeal and/or (D) as costs to notarize, serve, mail, and file the record, briefs, and other papers.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately substantiated that these costs, though categorized as other, are recoverable under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, except as to the "preparation of brief" and "answer to petition for review" costs appearing as the first line item as to each of the Counsel Press invoices. In the Court's view, these appear to be non-recoverable costs that are attorneys' fees for authoring the briefs, as opposed to formatting mere costs. As such, the Court will strike $750 from the January 15, 2025 invoice, $550 from the December 15, 2025 invoice and $625 from the May 28, 2025 invoice, for a total of $1,925.

The Court finds that the remainder of the costs on these invoices properly recoverable under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subds. (1)(d)(1)(C) and(1)(d)(1)(D), and are otherwise commercially reasonable and routine. Summary Therefore, the Court awards the costs as follows: Cost | Initial Amount | Amount Awarded | 1. Filing and Motion Fees | $775.00 | $775.00 | 2. Preparation of the original and copies of clerk's transcript or appendix | $934.00 | $934.00 | 6. Transmitting, filing, and serving of record, briefs, and other papers

| $852.70 | 789.70 | 9. Other: Counsel Press | $3,078.28 | $1,153.28 | Total | $5,639.98 | $3,651.98 | If a request for oral argument is received timely by the Court, the hearing for oral argument will be held on May 26, 2026; 8:30 am; D1. If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings. Re: Clubb, Mykayla vs. Orchard Square 79, LLC