 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rodriguez v. Honeywell International12/29/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
In this consolidated appeal, prevailing plaintiffs in two asbestos-related cases appeal the trial court's orders taxing costs. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Enrique and Sixta Rodriguez and Roger and Oma Lea Ray each filed personal injury and loss of consortium actions against multiple defendants, including Honeywell International, Inc., formerly known as AlliedSignal, Inc. (Honeywell), for injuries due to alleged asbestos exposure. Honeywell accepted Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers to compromise submitted in both actions. The trial court entered judgment in each action pursuant to the respective offers to compromise.
Following entry of the judgments, each prevailing plaintiff filed a verified memorandum of costs seeking reimbursement for filing and motion fees, deposition costs, and service of process fees. Honeywell filed a motion to tax costs in both cases, arguing that costs incurred in pursuing other defendants were not reasonable in amount as applied to Honeywell. It argued the recoverable costs in an asbestos case should be divided by the number of defendants that have appeared in the case.
Honeywell asserted that it should only be responsible for 1/58 of the filing and motion fees and deposition costs in the Rodriquez action, since 58 defendants made appearances in that case. Similarly, it argued that it should only be responsible for 1/28 of the filing and motion fees and deposition costs in the Ray action, since 28 defendants made appearances in that case. Finally, with respect to the service of process fees, Honeywell argued that it was not reasonable for plaintiffs to seek reimbursement for costs incurred in serving other defendants. The cost memoranda reflected that plaintiffs incurred $10 for service of process on AlliedSignal, Inc., Honeywell's predecessor-in-interest, in their respective cases. Plaintiffs maintained they were entitled to 100 percent of their costs from Honeywell.
The trial court granted the motions, finding the claimed costs were not reasonable and necessary for the prosecution of the actions against Honeywell. The trial court awarded the Rodriguezes 1/57 of the claimed filing and motion fees and deposition costs and awarded $10 for the service of process on Honeywell. Similarly, it awarded the Rays 1/27 of the claimed filing and motion fees and deposition costs and awarded $10 for the service of process on Honeywell.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in granting the motion to tax costs because they had the right to seek their entire costs against Honeywell, regardless of whether some of the costs were incurred against other defendants. Plaintiffs further contend that Honeywell failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that the claimed costs were unreasonable in amount and were unnecessarily incurred.
The recovery of costs is purely statutory. (Davis v. KGO-T.V., Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 436, 439.) A prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs of suit in any action or proceeding. (§ 1032 subd. (b); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606.) The only limitation on statutorily allowable costs is that they must be "reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation" and "reasonable in amount." (§ 1033.5 subd. (c)(2) and (3).)
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|