March 06, 2025
What Costs Are Available To Prevailing Party?
This article will cover which costs a prevailing party can recover if they did not serve CCP 998 offer. To recover costs a prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment.
Under Cal. Rule Court 3.1700(a)(1), relating to prejudgment costs states, in pertinent part, that the memorandum of costs shall be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case. Initial verification will suffice to establish the reasonable necessity of the costs claimed. Thus, there is no requirement that copies of bills, invoices, statements, or any other such documents be attached to the memorandum or any other document. However, where the costs are put in issue via a motion to tax, those costs must be supported by submitting additional documentation establishing the reasonableness and necessity thereof.
Under Pursuant to CCP § 1033.5 allows various costs to be recoverable as matter of right to the prevailing party and there are other costs that the court has discretion to allow as reasonably necessary to conduct the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation. Finally, the court does need to find that those costs must be “reasonable in amount.”
In specific pursuant to CCP § 1033.5 (a) The following items are allowable as costs under Section 1032:
(1) Filing, motion, and jury fees.
(3)
(A) Taking, video recording, and transcribing necessary depositions, including an original and one copy of those taken by the claimant and one copy of depositions taken by the party against whom costs are allowed.
(B) Fees of a certified or registered interpreter for the deposition of a party or witness who does not proficiently speak or understand the English language.
(C) Travel expenses to attend depositions.
(7) Ordinary witness fees pursuant to Section 68093 of the Government Code.
(8) Fees of expert witnesses ordered by the Court.
(9) Transcripts of court proceedings ordered by the Court.
(13) Models, the enlargements of exhibits and photocopies of exhibits, and the electronic presentation of exhibits, including costs of rental equipment and electronic formatting, may be allowed if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact.
(16) Any other item that is required to be awarded to the prevailing party pursuant to statute as an incident to prevailing in the action at trial or on appeal.
(b) The following items are not allowable as costs, except when expressly authorized by law:
(1) Fees of experts not ordered by the Court.
(2) Investigation expenses in preparing the case for trial.
(3) Postage, telephone, and photocopying charges, except for exhibits.
(4) Costs in investigation of jurors or in preparation for voir dire.
(5) Transcripts of court proceedings not ordered by the Court
The allowance or disallowance of items for the expenses and disbursements incurred upon the trial of an action must be left in nearly every instance to the discretion of the judge before whom the cause was tried. (Security Trust & Sav. Bank v. Carrier, 107 Cal. App. 333) The determination of the items allowable as costs is largely a question for the trial court in its discretion, and when the record is devoid of any showing of an improper exercise of such discretion, this Court will not disturb such determination on appeal. (Von Goerlitz v. Turner (1944) 65 Cal.App.2d 425). Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b) provides that a “prevailing party” is entitled to recover its litigation costs. . . . Further, the recovery of costs is limited to those costs that are “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” (CCP § 1033.5(c)(2) (emphasis added)) Additionally, the costs must be “reasonable in amount.” (CCP § 1033.5(c)(3).) Whether a cost is “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation” is a question of fact for the trial court[.]” (Gibson v. Bobroff (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 1202, 1209.)
The courts have held in matters where there are more than one defendant and Plaintiff does not prevail against all the Defendant but prevail against at least one defendant, the losing defendant is not entitled to apportionment costs. This was highlighted in Stiles v. Estate of Ryan (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1057 our first District held:
There, plaintiffs sued numerous defendants to recover damages resulting from earth movement under their house; they received judgment in their favor against only two defendants.(.id. at 1065) On appeal, the losing Defendant requested that the costs be apportioned. (ibid.) In rejecting the contention, the Court stated, “Under section 1032 of the Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs in an action to recover money damages were entitled to costs as a matter of course. It was not necessary that they recover on all of their various theories or causes of action or counts.” (At p. 256.) (.id. at 1066) In other words, even though plaintiffs had not prevailed against all the defendants, they were entitled to recover their costs against the two losing defendants. (ibid.) But the losing defendants were not entitled to an apportionment of the costs. (ibid.)
Under Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(12), explicitly allows a prevailing party to recover the cost of photocopies of exhibits if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact. Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49.58. So, the prevailing party is able to cover costs for exhibits binders made for trial. As most Plaintiff counsel, this can be a considerable cost in complex personal injury cases.
The prevailing party can also recover deposition costs, even those deponents did not testify at the trial. The courts have held that recovery of deposition costs does not depend on whether the deponent ultimately testifies at trial. (See Culbertson v. R.D. Werner Co., Inc. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 704, 711–712 [nature of Plaintiff’s case determines necessity of discovery].) The standard is that reasonable fees can be awarded as long as a potential witness, not that they actually testified at trial. (See Evers v. Cornelson (1984) 163 Cal. App. 3d 310, 317.)
The court will even allow travel costs for the depositions. Trial court did not abuse its discretion under CCP § 1033.5(a)(3) in allowing the costs of travel to and from depositions in other states, including hotels, car rentals, gas, and parking. (Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49.)
In conclusion, a prevailing party is entitled to various costs as a matter of right and there are other costs that the court may allow under its discretion. Manzoor Law Firm, Inc. specializes in helping clients recover the compensation they deserve, ensuring their legal rights are protected. If you need a Roseville, CA car accident lawyer, our experienced team is here to guide you through every step of the process.