Dean Ventura vs R&R Motorworks
Case No: 16CV05772
Hearing Date: Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:30
Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Strike Costs
TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s amended cost memorandum is denied.
BACKGROUND:
On December 21, 2016, plaintiff Dean Ventura filed his complaint for breach of contract, general negligence, fraud, and violation of the consumer protection statutes. In late 2014, plaintiff contracted with defendant Ralph Gold of R&R Motorworks regarding a broad range of repairs and modifications for his 1964 Corvette, including brake and suspension work. Plaintiff paid defendant $5,000.00 towards the costs of the repairs and upgrades he wanted and left the car with defendant. Plaintiff contends that he told defendant that he had a budget of $35,000.00 for the work to be performed, but was ultimately charged over $57,000.00. Plaintiff contends that he never received written estimates for the labor and materials and that the work performed by defendant was defective and created safety issues. Plaintiff sought a return of all money paid to defendant, plus damages for costs incurred to undo defendant’s work.
The parties tried the matter as a bench trial. On April 29, 2019, the court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the sum of $21,837.15. On May 10, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended memorandum of costs in the sum of $5,710.16. Defendant now moves to strike the cost bill pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033, subdivision (a), on the ground that, given the damage award, the action should have been filed as a limited jurisdiction case.
ANALYSIS:
As a general rule, the prevailing party in an action is entitled to recover its costs. Code Civ. Proc. §1032, subd. (b). However, if a party brings an unlimited civil action and recovers a judgment within the $25,000.00 jurisdictional limit for a limited civil action, the trial court has discretion to deny costs to the plaintiff. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033, subdivision (a), provides:
“Costs or any portion of claimed costs shall be as determined by the court in its discretion in a case other than a limited civil case . . . where the prevailing party recovers a judgment that could have been rendered in a limited civil case.”
In moving to strike plaintiff’s amended cost memorandum, defendant does not contend that the costs were not incurred by plaintiff, that they were not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, or that they were not reasonable in amount. Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5, subd. (c). Rather, defendant contends that plaintiff should not recover his costs because the judgment entered by the court was less than the jurisdictional limits for a limited civil action. Factors the court may be consider in denying all or some of a prevailing party’s costs under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033 include (1) plaintiff’s assessment of its chances of recovery beyond the jurisdiction of the limited civil court when it filed its action, and whether that assessment was reasonable and in good faith, (2) the amount of the recovery as compared to the maximum amount of the limited civil court jurisdiction, and (3) the amount of costs incurred. Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal.4th 970, 984.
Defendant contends that when plaintiff filed his complaint, he had no good reason to believe that it belonged in the superior court as an unlimited civil action, but this court disagrees. Plaintiff asserted four separate causes of action in his complaint, including a claim for fraud. Plaintiff alleged that he overpaid defendant because he did not authorize $57,000.00 worth of repairs and because he did not receive the benefit of $57,000.00 worth of work. According to plaintiff, the overcharged amount was roughly $22,000.00 as the parties had agreed to a contract price of $35,000.00. In addition, plaintiff alleged that he was facing at least $20,000.00 in cost of repair damages in order to undo and correct the defective work performed by defendant. Finally, plaintiff claimed that defendant charged him $1,000.00 for work that was never done. Had the full amount of plaintiff’s alleged damages been awarded, the judgment would easily have been beyond the $25,000.00 jurisdictional limits for a limited civil action.
In Carter v. Cohen (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1053, the court stated:
“[T]he trial court may properly award costs to a plaintiff who recovers less than the jurisdictional amount for an unlimited civil case when he or she reasonably and in good faith initiated the action believing that the ultimate recovery would exceed the jurisdictional limit.”
Based on the foregoing, the court will deny defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s cost memorandum. The court finds that at the time of filing, plaintiff reasonably believed that unlimited jurisdiction was proper.