68 Cal.App.5th 392
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background:
- Plaintiff-appellant Nadejda Rozanova (in pro. per.) sued neighbors Rafael Uribe and Rosa Curayag; respondents moved to declare her a vexatious litigant and filed dispositive motions.
- The trial court granted Uribe’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and sustained Curayag’s demurrer, dismissing the action with prejudice.
- Respondents filed a memorandum of costs seeking roughly $2,905.69 (filing/motion fees, court reporter fees, $1,243.04 for photocopies of exhibits, and e-filing/service fees).
- Rozanova moved to tax costs, arguing (inter alia) photocopy costs are recoverable only for trial exhibits and certain motions were unnecessary; the trial court denied most objections, reduced e-filing fees, and awarded $2,743.04.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding photocopies of exhibits used to support a vexatious litigant motion were recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(13) because the court acted as a trier of fact in that proceeding, and the other cost awards were supported by the record.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recoverability of filing and motion fees | Rozanova: some motions (vexatious-litigant, protective order, duplicative dispositive filings) were unnecessary, so fees aren’t "reasonably necessary" under §1033.5(c)(2) | Respondents: fees are enumerated recoverable items and motions were reasonable/necessary given prior litigation history and procedural posture | Court: Fees are expressly allowable under §1033.5(a)(1); substantial evidence supports finding the motions were reasonably necessary; award affirmed |
| Recoverability of photocopy costs for exhibits not used at trial (exhibits to vexatious-litigant motion) | Rozanova: §1033.5(a)(13) limits recoverable exhibit photocopies to those used at trial because the statute limits recovery to items helpful to the "trier of fact" at trial | Respondents: photocopies of judicial‑notice and appellate/supreme court filings attached to the vexatious‑litigant motion aided the court in a factual proceeding and thus fit §1033.5(a)(13) | Court: "Trier of fact" in §1033.5(a)(13) is not limited to jury/trial; where the court weighs evidence (e.g., vexatious‑litigant motion) the exhibits may be "reasonably helpful"—award of $1,243.04 affirmed |
| Court reporter and electronic filing fees — scope/reasonableness | Rozanova: fees should be limited to the single motion necessary to win (the demurrer) and other claimed fees are excessive | Respondents: the reporter and e‑filing fees are statutorily allowable and tied to motions reasonably necessary to the litigation | Court: costs for court reporter and e‑filing are expressly allowable (§1033.5(a)(11),(14)); trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding them (it reduced e‑filing to reasonable amount) |
Key Cases Cited
- Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson, LLP, 40 Cal.4th 780 (California Supreme Court) (trial court may weigh evidence on vexatious‑litigant motion)
- Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn., 19 Cal.App.4th 761 (1993) (court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized)
- Seever v. Copley Press, Inc., 141 Cal.App.4th 1550 (2006) (construed §1033.5(a)(13) as excluding exhibits not used at trial)
- Segal v. Asics America Corp., 50 Cal.App.5th 659 (2020) (addressing recoverability of trial exhibits not used at trial; review granted)
- Applegate v. St. Francis Lutheran Church, 23 Cal.App.4th 361 (1994) (recognized discretionary recovery under §1033.5(c)(4) for some exhibit costs)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles, 149 Cal.App.4th 836 (2007) (upheld discretionary recovery of photocopy costs prepared for trial)
- Berkeley Cement, Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 30 Cal.App.5th 1133 (2019) (standard of review and statutory limits on costs)
- Foothill‑De Anza Community College Dist. v. Emerich, 158 Cal.App.4th 11 (2007) (allocation of burdens when taxing costs)