Pacheco v. Tuttle CA2/3
B302508
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 22, 2021Background
- Baldwin Park councilmembers Richard Pacheco, Manuel Lozano, and Monica Garcia obtained or sought civil harassment restraining orders against Greg Tuttle; after a hearing the trial court dissolved the TRO and dismissed the matters for failure to prove harassment by clear and convincing evidence.
- Tuttle moved for attorney fees under the civil harassment statute (§ 527.6/527.2) and the private-attorney-general statute (§ 1021.5); the trial court denied the fee request as excessive.
- On appeal Tuttle forfeited his fee claim and this Court affirmed the denial, directing that respondents recover their costs on appeal.
- Respondents’ appellate counsel filed a verified memorandum of costs in the trial court claiming $1,627.76 (filing fees, record/transcript, printing, service).
- Tuttle filed a motion to tax costs raising multiple objections (no oral hearing required, lack of evidence, appellate counsel not of record in trial court, prior order on costs, unclean hands, excessive items); the trial court denied the motion and allowed the costs.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding (inter alia) no right to an oral hearing on a motion to tax costs, the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $1,627.76.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an oral hearing is required on a motion to tax appellate costs | No hearing required; rules permit resolution on papers | An oral hearing was required before ruling | No hearing required; Rules 8.278 and 3.1700 contemplate written submissions and do not mandate oral argument (Lewis distinguished) |
| Whether a verified memorandum of costs without additional documents is sufficient proof | The verified memorandum is prima facie evidence of recoverable costs | The memorandum alone is insufficient; plaintiffs must produce invoices/receipts | The verified memorandum constitutes prima facie evidence; burden shifts to objector to show costs unreasonable or unnecessary (Nelson/Litt) |
| Whether filing by respondents’ appellate counsel (not then of record in trial court) was improper | Appellate counsel properly declared clients’ costs and plaintiffs later associated co-counsel in trial court | Appellate counsel was an "uninterested party" and should not have filed the memo absent an association of counsel | Accepting the memorandum was proper; no authority requires appellate counsel to file an association before submitting a cost memo |
| Whether specific cost items (filing fees, appendix, reporter transcript, printing, service) were recoverable | Each item falls within Rule 8.278(d) and was reasonably incurred | Some items were improper or duplicative; filing fees not payable by public entities; printing/service excessive | Each contested category is allowable under Rule 8.278(d); objections unsupported by evidence, and some statutory provisions (e.g., Gov. Code §6103.5) permit recovery of filing fees |
| Whether equitable defenses (unclean hands) permit denial of statutory appellate costs | Prevailing party entitled to statutory appellate costs regardless of alleged misconduct | Plaintiffs’ alleged misconduct should bar recovery | Equitable defense cannot override statutory entitlement where appellate court’s remittitur awarded costs; trial court had no discretion to deny on unclean-hands grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1232 (1999) (interpreting when statutory use of “heard” requires oral argument)
- Brannon v. Superior Court, 114 Cal.App.4th 1203 (2004) (statutory context can require oral hearing for certain motions)
- TJX Companies, Inc. v. Superior Court, 87 Cal.App.4th 747 (2001) (demurrer procedures presume oral hearing)
- Nelson v. Anderson, 72 Cal.App.4th 111 (1999) (verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence; objector bears burden to prove unreasonableness)
- Litt v. Eisenhower Medical Center, 237 Cal.App.4th 1217 (2015) (same rule on prima facie effect of verified cost memoranda)
- 612 South LLC v. Laconic Ltd. P’ship, 184 Cal.App.4th 1270 (2010) (discussing circumstances requiring evidentiary hearing on fee claims)
- Guillemin v. Stein, 104 Cal.App.4th 156 (2002) (public entities’ unpaid filing fees may be treated as recoverable costs under related statute)