What is a Motion to Tax Costs?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Tax Costs

Recent Rulings on Motion to Tax Costs

APPLIED MEDICAL RESOURCES CORPORATION VS. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

Motion to Tax Costs filed by Applied Medical Resources Corporation

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

BRITTANIE NEWMAN VS KNIT CREATIONS INC ET AL

Conclusion Knit’s motion to tax costs is granted. Newman is not entitled to an award of costs on appeal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CANYON CREST CONSERVANCY VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: September 29, 2020 BS167311 Tentative Decision on Motion to Strike or Tax Costs Petitioner Canyon Crest Conservancy (“Petitioner”) moves to strike the memorandum of costs on appeal filed by Real Party in Interest Stephen Kuhn (“Kuhn” or “Real Party”), or alternatively to tax costs. Judicial Notice Petitioner’s RJN Exhibit A – Granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LAKE FOREST KEYS VS. LOPEZ

Thus, it appears Lopez did not give notice of the currently scheduled hearing date on her Motion to Tax Costs After Judgment such that Cross-defendants and Cross-complainants, Carl C. Alford and Gloria E. Monsalve did not receive notice of the current hearing date. The Court notes that no opposition to the motion was filed. Oppositions and replies will be due per Code based on the continued hearing date. Lopez to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

MANN V. PUENTE

Based on the court’s 9-22-20 Minute Order the Motions to Tax Costs (filed under ROA Nos. 615 and 619) are CONTINUED to 11-24-20 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C19.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

TANIA PULLIAM VS HNL AUTOMOTIVE INC ET AL

BC633169 Tentative Ruling re: Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs Defendant TD Auto Finance LLC (TDAF) moves to tax the attorney fees sought in the memorandum of costs as well as $4,444.03 from the total post judgment costs of $5,697.80. The motion is granted in part. As an initial matter the Court declines to limit any award against TDAF pursuant to the Holder Rule. The Court has no jurisdiction to address the propriety of the initial award of attorney’s fees against TDAF since this matter is on appeal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

WHITEHAIR V. CITY OF ORANGE

After reviewing the Memorandum of Costs, the court DENIES Plaintiffs (Bob Whitehair and Teresa Whitehair) Motion to Tax Costs of Clarence and Barbara Bronner filed on 9-4-20 under ROA No. 481. Defendants are to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

RONG SUN ET AL VS CITY OF TORRANCE ET AL

Alternatively, if Plaintiffs can produce evidence that they properly gave notice of the subject hearing date as ordered, the court rules as follows: Motion to Tax Costs Initial Note As an initial matter, the court notes that upon filing of an appeal, it retains jurisdiction to rule on matters collateral to the judgment. (CCP § 916(a).) A motion to tax costs is a collateral matter. (Hennessy v. Superior Court (1924) 194 Cal. 368, 372; Bankes v. Lucas (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 365, 369.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

JOE ALLEN VS DEHUMIDIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC

Motion to Tax Costs Defendant’s memorandum of costs seeks a total of $18,432.99 in costs. Plaintiff challenges 4 items, as follows: Item No. 4: Deposition Costs of $7,247.52 Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s requested costs for deposition is excessive generally. (Motion, 7.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HOVIK GRIGORIAN, ET AL VS. FELIX LOPEZ, ET AL

Thus, the request for costs on appeal is premature at this time as Lopez and Rodriguez should be afforded the opportunity to file a motion to strike/tax costs. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Cross-Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees is granted in the total amount of $25,910 for attorney’s fees incurred during the appeal and the fees and costs to bring this motion. The request for costs on appeal is denied, as the request is premature. Cross-Defendants shall provide notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EDUARDO MARTINEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to tax costs is granted in the reduced amount of $20. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to costs in the requested amount of $5,769.10. Dated: September _____, 2020 Hon. Monica Bachner Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

MELISSA MARTINEZ VS L A HARDWOOD FLOORING INC ET AL

.: BC715464 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX COSTS Date: September 24, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Melissa Martinez RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants L.A. Hardwood Flooring, Inc. (“LAHF”) and Ray Chavez (“Chavez”) The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers. No reply papers were filed. Any reply papers were required to be filed and served at least five court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KESSLER VS WESTERN SAFE & VAULT CO INC

Plaintiffs Phillip Kessler and Kathleen Allenbach's Motion to Tax Costs is denied. If 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 omitted) and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the plaintiff. (Citations omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AMBRIZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

The losing party may dispute any or all of the items in the prevailing party’s costs memorandum by a motion to strike or tax costs. (CRC 3.1700(b).) A verified memorandum of costs constitutes prima facie evidence of the reasonable necessity of the costs claimed. There is no requirement that copies of bills, invoices, statements or any other supporting documents be attached to the memorandum. Only if costs have been put in issue by a motion to tax costs must supporting documentation be submitted. (Jones v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

SHU WU SUE CHUEH ET AL VS CAESAR GLOBAL ALLIANCE INC ET AL

Plaintiffs contend that Tunnel erred in deducting certain tax costs. Defendants contend Tunnel erred in not apply a discount for liquidation. Deduction of Tax Costs Plaintiffs argue that Tunnel should not have deducted $20,864.00 in payroll taxes and $5,000.00 in estimated costs for tax return preparation, citing Abrams v. Abrams-Rubaloff & Assocs., Inc. (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 240.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PERSLOW V KINGS COUNTY VENTURES

Ex. 5: Ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Strike and Tax Costs and Plaintiffs’ Motion fo Attorney Fees, filed July 21, 2014 in Grow Land and Water, LLC, et al. vs.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

ARANGO VS. ARNOLD MD

Plaintiffs did not file a motion to tax costs and did not raise an objection to costs in its opposition. The Court confirms the Arnold Defendants timely claimed recoverable costs. Plaintiffs Carlos Arango and Monica Ghersi are ordered to pay the Arnold Defendants costs on appeal in the amount of $531.53. IT IS SO ORDERED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

ARANGO VS. ARNOLD MD

Plaintiffs did not file a motion to tax costs and did not raise an objection to costs in its opposition. The Court confirms A Perfect Match timely claimed recoverable costs on appeal in the amount of $390. Plaintiffs Carlos Arango and Monica Ghersi are ordered to pay Defendant A Perfect Match, Inc. costs on appeal in the amount of $390. IT IS SO ORDERED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

GARCIA VS BERTONE HEARING RE: MOTION TO TAX COSTS BY PAULA MARIE BERTONE

On March 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs seeking $33,640.95 in costs. Defendant moves to strike or tax those costs under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1033.5 and 1034, and Rules of Court, rule 3.1700. The Court grants the motion with respect to $29,541.85 in claimed costs, and otherwise denies the motion. Defendant is awarded cos...

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

GRUNFELD V. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Additionally, Defendant seeks to tax $150.00 in costs anticipated by Plaintiff to be incurred for a motion for attorney’s fees, and $150.00 in costs anticipated by Plaintiff to be incurred for Defendant’s motion to strike/tax costs. Plaintiff has not met his burden in opposition to demonstrate that these costs are reasonable. It is not entirely clear from the opposition what these amounts are comprised of.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

DAKOTA FINANCIAL, LLC VS TIGER TRANS INC., ET AL.

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, 773-74.) The filing and service fees appear reasonable and are not challenged by a motion to tax costs. Conclusion Plaintiff Dakota Financial, Inc.’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,474.55 ATTORNEY’S FEES AND $1,100.00 COSTS.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KRISTA LYNN TAYLOR VS LISA HANKIN

On July 21, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion to tax costs. The Court found that total costs in the sum of $14,4296.62 are allowed. On August 18, 2020, Defendant Lisa Hankin filed the instant motion for order requiring undertaking to stay enforcement of judgment on appeal. ANALYSIS: I. Legal Standard The “trial courts have discretion to impose an undertaking requirement with regard to a judgment solely for costs.” (Quiles v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

JOHN J STEF VS PUEBLO RADIOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP INC ET AL

Mariners Mile Gateway, LLC (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1065, which held that when sophisticated parties specifically provide for recovery of expert witness fees in a freely negotiated contract, such fees may be recovered by including them on a memorandum of costs, and proving them if a motion to tax costs is filed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

PDTW, LLC VS. KRING & CHUNG

But Plaintiffs, as is their right, challenged the unclear memorandum through a motion to tax costs, and Defendants, in response, provided the documents necessary to (largely) meet their burden of proving recoverability. Taking the foregoing into account, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to the courtesy copies and DENIED in all other respects. Defendants are awarded $7,245.65 in costs. III.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

STROBEL V. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL.

Motion by Plaintiffs to Tax Costs Claimed by Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. TENTATIVE RULING C.C.P. §1033.5(a) sets forth categories of costs which are generally recoverable by a prevailing party against the losing party. Among those categories of costs are “Filing, motion, and jury fees”. The opposition to this motion withdrew all claims for the earlier-claimed $8,983.00 in filing, motion and jury fees other than the amount of $1,520.00.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 164     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.