Reyes v. Frank's Service & Trucking, LLC
235 Ariz. 605
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Reyes, the plaintiff, was injured in a collision involving FST driver Antonio Silva in California on an interstate highway.
- FST had made a pretrial offer of judgment for $200,001; Reyes did not respond to the offer.
- The jury awarded Reyes $370,000, but 49% fault allocation to Reyes reduced recovery to $188,700.
- Post-trial, Reyes sought taxable costs exceeding $30,000, with more than half incurred before the offer of judgment.
- The trial court awarded Reyes $32,052.12 in taxable costs and denied Rule 68 sanctions; final judgment reflected damages plus costs.
- Appeals were filed: FST challenged costs and Rule 68 sanctions; Reyes cross-appealed on a negligence per se jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are in-state deposition costs taxable costs under § 12-332(A)(2)? | Reyes incurred in-state deposition costs recoverable as taxable costs. | FST contends in-state costs are not taxable. | In-state deposition costs are taxable if reasonable and necessary. |
| Are interpreter expenses taxable costs as part of deposition costs? | Interpreter fees are necessary deposition costs under § 12-332(A)(2). | Interpreter fees may be mischaracterized as witness fees or improper costs. | Interpreter fees are taxable as incidental deposition costs under § 12-332(A)(2). |
| May video-recording deposition costs be taxed when both transcript and video are used? | Costs for video-recording are taxable as costs of taking depositions. | Costs must be analyzed for reasonableness and necessity on remand when both methods are used. | Costs for video-recording may be taxable, but a case-by-case determination is required; certain amounts were vacated and remanded for reconsideration. |
| Are no-show deposition costs recoverable as taxable costs? | No-show costs for properly subpoenaed witnesses are taxable as deposition costs. | No-show costs should be scrutinized as invalid or improper expenses. | No-show deposition costs are recoverable as costs of taking depositions under § 12-332(A)(2). |
| Was the mediation fee recoverable under § 12-332(A)(6)? | Parties agreed to incur mediation costs; costs should be awarded under the statute. | The agreement did not specify ultimate treatment, possibly limiting recovery. | Mediation costs awarded where the parties agreed to incur them under § 12-332(A)(6). |
Key Cases Cited
- Schritter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 201 Ariz. 391 (Ariz. 2001) (defines taxable costs and § 12-332 scope)
- DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Center, 144 Ariz. 21 (Ariz. App. 1984) (deputy travel costs deemed taxable costs)
- Bennett v. Baxter Grp., Inc., 223 Ariz. 414 (Ariz. App. 2010) (limited certain costs under § 12-332(A))
- Fowler v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 124 Ariz. 111 (Ariz. App. 1979) (trial courts have broad discretion on taxable costs; reasonableness/need)
- Visco v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., 3 Ariz. App. 504 (Ariz. App. 1966) (transcript costs are costs incidental to taking deposition; interpreter costs recognized)
- In re Nelson, 207 Ariz. 318 (Ariz. 2004) (costs may be recoverable even if deposition not used, if taken in good faith)
- State ex rel. Corbin v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 143 Ariz. 219 (Ariz. App. 1984) (depositions costs considerations and necessity)
- White v. Frye, 27 Ariz. 447 (Ariz. 1925) (deposition costs not defeated by non-use if taken in good faith)
- Hutto v. Francisco, 210 Ariz. 88 (Ariz. App. 2005) (negligence per se requires specific statutory violation with concrete standard)