Code Details

Code of Civil Procedure – CCP
PART 2. OF CIVIL ACTIONS [307 – 1062.34] ( Part 2 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 14. OF MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS [989 – 1062.34] ( Title 14 enacted 1872. )

CHAPTER 6. Of Costs [1021 – 1038] ( Chapter 6 enacted 1872. )

Exact Statute Text

(a) The following items are allowable as costs under Section 1032:

(1) Filing, motion, and jury fees.

(2) Juror food and lodging while they are kept together during trial and after the jury retires for deliberation.

(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.

(4) Service of process by a public officer, registered process server, or other means, as follows:

(A) When service is by a public officer, the recoverable cost is the fee authorized by law at the time of service.

(B) If service is by a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, the recoverable cost is the amount actually incurred in effecting service, including, but not limited to, a stakeout or other means employed in locating the person to be served, unless those charges are successfully challenged by a party to the action.

(C) When service is by publication, the recoverable cost is the sum actually incurred in effecting service.

(D) When service is by a means other than that set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C), the recoverable cost is the lesser of the sum actually incurred, or the amount allowed to a public officer in this state for that service, except that the court may allow the sum actually incurred in effecting service upon application pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (c).

(5) Expenses of attachment including keeper’s fees.

(6) Premiums on necessary surety bonds.

(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.

(10) Attorney’s fees, when authorized by any of the following:

(A) Contract.

(B) Statute.

(C) Law.

(11) Court reporter fees as established by statute.

(12) Court interpreter fees for a qualified court interpreter authorized by the court for an indigent person represented by a qualified legal services project, as defined in Section 6213 of the Business and Professions Code, or a pro bono attorney, as defined in Section 8030.4 of the Business and Professions Code.

(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.

(14) Fees for the electronic filing or service of documents through an electronic filing service provider if a court requires or orders electronic filing or service of documents.

(15) Fees for the hosting of electronic documents if a court requires or orders a party to have documents hosted by an electronic filing service provider. This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2022.

(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.

(c) An award of costs shall be subject to the following:

(1) Costs are allowable if incurred, whether or not paid.

(2) Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.

(3) Allowable costs shall be reasonable in amount.

(4) Items not mentioned in this section and items assessed upon application may be allowed or denied in the court’s discretion.

(5) (A) If a statute of this state refers to the award of “costs and attorney’s fees,” attorney’s fees are an item and component of the costs to be awarded and are allowable as costs pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a). A claim not based upon the court’s established schedule of attorney’s fees for actions on a contract shall bear the burden of proof. Attorney’s fees allowable as costs pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) may be fixed as follows: (i) upon a noticed motion, (ii) at the time a statement of decision is rendered, (iii) upon application supported by affidavit made concurrently with a claim for other costs, or (iv) upon entry of default judgment. Attorney’s fees allowable as costs pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (C) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) shall be fixed either upon a noticed motion or upon entry of a default judgment, unless otherwise provided by stipulation of the parties.

(B) Attorney’s fees awarded pursuant to Section 1717 of the Civil Code are allowable costs under Section 1032 as authorized by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a).

(Amended by Stats. 2017, Ch. 583, Sec. 1. (AB 828) Effective January 1, 2018.)

Code of Civil Procedure § 1141.10 Summary

Please note: The title for this article refers to Code of Civil Procedure § 1141.10, which governs judicial arbitration in limited civil cases. However, the exact statute text provided above is actually for Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5, which details the items that are allowable or not allowable as costs in California civil litigation. This summary and the subsequent sections will explain the *provided text* (CCP § 1033.5).

Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5 outlines the specific expenses that a “prevailing party” (a party who wins their case) in a California civil lawsuit can recover from the losing party. It categorizes costs into those that are generally allowable (e.g., filing fees, deposition costs, expert witness fees if court-ordered, attorney’s fees if authorized by contract, statute, or law) and those that are generally *not* allowable (e.g., non-court-ordered expert fees, investigation expenses, basic postage, and photocopying). The statute also establishes conditions for cost recovery, emphasizing that allowable costs must be reasonably necessary to the litigation and reasonable in amount, whether or not they have been paid. It also clarifies how attorney’s fees, when recoverable, are treated as a component of costs.

Purpose of Code of Civil Procedure § 1141.10

Please note: As mentioned above, the provided text pertains to Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5, which addresses the recoverability of litigation costs, not judicial arbitration. This section will discuss the purpose of CCP § 1033.5.

The primary purpose of Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5 is to standardize and clarify which expenses incurred during a lawsuit are legally recoverable by the prevailing party. Litigation can be incredibly expensive, and without clear guidelines, there would be constant disputes over what constitutes a legitimate “cost of suit.” This statute serves several key functions:

1. Promotes Fairness: It ensures that a party who successfully pursues or defends a legal action can be partially reimbursed for their out-of-pocket expenses, preventing the winning party from being financially disadvantaged by the cost of litigation itself.
2. Reduces Litigation over Costs: By providing a detailed list of allowable and non-allowable items, it reduces the need for judges to make ad hoc decisions on cost issues, streamlining the post-judgment process.
3. Encourages Reasonable Spending: The requirement that costs be “reasonably necessary” and “reasonable in amount” discourages parties from incurring excessive or unnecessary expenses purely for strategic advantage, knowing they might not be recoverable.
4. Defines Attorney’s Fees as Costs: It specifically integrates attorney’s fees (when authorized) into the framework of recoverable costs, acknowledging their significant impact on the overall expense of litigation.

In essence, CCP § 1033.5 aims to create a predictable and equitable system for cost recovery in California civil actions, ensuring that the financial burden of pursuing justice is managed systematically.

Real-World Example of Code of Civil Procedure § 1141.10

Let’s consider a scenario where Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5 (the provided text) comes into play.

Scenario: Sarah was injured in a slip-and-fall accident at a grocery store and sued the store for negligence. After a lengthy trial, the jury found in favor of Sarah, awarding her $150,000 for her medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. As the “prevailing party,” Sarah is now entitled to recover her litigation costs.

Under CCP § 1033.5, Sarah’s attorney will prepare a “memorandum of costs” detailing the expenses she incurred. Here’s how the statute would apply:

• Allowable Costs (based on § 1033.5(a)):

* Filing Fees: Sarah paid initial court filing fees to start the lawsuit, which are clearly allowable under (a)(1).
* Deposition Costs: She had to depose several store employees and the store’s expert witness. The fees for taking, video recording, and transcribing these depositions, plus her attorney’s reasonable travel expenses to attend, would be recoverable under (a)(3).
* Process Server Fees: To serve the lawsuit papers on the grocery store, Sarah used a registered process server. The actual cost incurred for this service is recoverable under (a)(4)(B).
* Court-Ordered Expert Witness Fees: During the trial, the court appointed a neutral medical expert to provide an opinion on Sarah’s injuries. The fees for this court-ordered expert are recoverable under (a)(8).
* Attorney’s Fees (if applicable): If Sarah’s personal injury case involved a contract with an attorney’s fee provision (uncommon in standard PI cases but possible in others) or a specific statute authorized fee recovery, her attorney’s fees would also be recoverable as costs under (a)(10).
* Exhibit Costs: Sarah’s attorney used enlarged anatomical models and photocopies of medical records as exhibits, which were reasonably helpful to the jury. These costs are recoverable under (a)(13).

• Non-Allowable Costs (based on § 1033.5(b)):

* Private Investigator: Before filing suit, Sarah hired a private investigator to gather evidence at the store. These “investigation expenses in preparing the case for trial” are generally *not* allowable under (b)(2).
* Photocopying for Attorney’s Office: General photocopying charges for internal office use, not related to exhibits, would typically not be recoverable under (b)(3).
* Non-Court-Ordered Expert: Sarah initially consulted with an independent medical expert to evaluate her case, but this expert was not called to testify at trial and was not ordered by the court. The fees for this expert would not be recoverable under (b)(1).

Sarah’s attorney would submit the memorandum of costs, and the grocery store could challenge specific items if they believe they were not necessary or reasonable. The court would then determine the final amount of costs the grocery store must pay to Sarah.

Related Statutes

Since the provided text is Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5, the related statutes would focus on the broader topic of costs in litigation:

• Code of Civil Procedure § 1032 – Prevailing Party Entitled to Costs: This is the foundational statute that CCP § 1033.5 refers to. It generally states that a prevailing party is entitled to recover costs in any action or proceeding, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute. CCP § 1033.5 then defines *what* those costs are.
• Code of Civil Procedure § 1034 – Claiming Costs; Motion to Strike or Tax Costs; Judgment: This statute outlines the procedural requirements for claiming costs, including how and when a party must file a memorandum of costs, and the process for the opposing party to challenge or “tax” those costs.
• Civil Code § 1717 – Attorney’s Fees on Contract Actions: This is directly referenced in CCP § 1033.5(c)(5)(B). It makes attorney’s fee provisions in contracts reciprocal, meaning if a contract allows one party to recover fees, the other party can also recover them if they prevail, even if the contract doesn’t explicitly state it. CCP § 1033.5 clarifies that such fees are an allowable cost.
• Code of Civil Procedure § 998 – Offer to Compromise: This statute can significantly impact cost recovery. If a party makes a reasonable settlement offer under Section 998 that the other party rejects, and the rejecting party fails to obtain a more favorable judgment at trial, the rejecting party may be subject to specific penalties, including the inability to recover their own post-offer costs and potentially having to pay the offering party’s expert witness costs.
• Government Code § 68093 – Ordinary Witness Fees: This is referenced in CCP § 1033.5(a)(7) and specifies the daily fees and mileage allowances for ordinary witnesses who are compelled to attend court.

## Case Law Interpreting Code of Civil Procedure § 1141.10

Please note: As established, the provided text is for Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5. Therefore, the case law discussed here will pertain to the interpretation of CCP § 1033.5 regarding allowable costs, not CCP § 1141.10 (judicial arbitration).

California appellate courts have frequently interpreted CCP § 1033.5 to provide guidance on the nuances of cost recovery. Here are some key areas and illustrative cases:

• Necessity and Reasonableness of Costs (CCP § 1033.5(c)(2) & (3)): Courts consistently emphasize that a party seeking costs bears the burden of proving that the claimed expenses were both reasonably necessary to the litigation and reasonable in amount.

* _Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems_ (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 994 [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17822452366113947262&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr]: This case, while primarily about attorney fees, reiterated that costs, including those for depositions, must be reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount.
* _Ladas v. California State Automobile Assn._ (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 701, 712 [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8694857476563606990&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr]: The court affirmed that the trial court has broad discretion in determining the necessity and reasonableness of costs.

• Expert Witness Fees (CCP § 1033.5(a)(8) vs. (b)(1)): The distinction between court-ordered expert fees (recoverable) and party-retained expert fees (generally not recoverable) is a frequent point of contention.

* _First Nationwide Bank v. Kowl_ (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 313, 316-318 [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17385966453965905141&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr]: This case clarified that expert witness fees, other than those ordered by the court, are not recoverable as costs unless a specific statute or contract provides otherwise. This reinforces the statutory language.

• Deposition Costs (CCP § 1033.5(a)(3)): Courts have generally taken a practical approach, allowing costs for depositions that appeared reasonably necessary at the time they were taken, even if not ultimately used at trial.

* _Applegate v. St. Francis Lutheran Church_ (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 361, 363-364 [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10972046467006830502&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr]: The court allowed the recovery of deposition costs for witnesses not called at trial, noting that “the question is not whether the deposition was actually used at trial, but whether it was necessary to the litigation.”

• Attorney’s Fees as Costs (CCP § 1033.5(a)(10) & (c)(5)): These subdivisions, particularly in conjunction with Civil Code § 1717, are heavily litigated, especially concerning how and when attorney’s fees are fixed.

* _Santisas v. Goodin_ (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606 [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10738374971253034989&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr]: While primarily discussing a different aspect of attorney fees, this landmark case highlights the statutory basis for recovering fees as costs and the importance of contractual or statutory authorization.

These cases demonstrate the judiciary’s role in applying the general principles of CCP § 1033.5 to diverse factual scenarios, ensuring that the cost recovery system remains fair and predictable.

Why Code of Civil Procedure § 1141.10 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Please note: This section will discuss the relevance of Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5 (allowable costs) to personal injury litigation, as per the provided statute text.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5 is immensely significant in California personal injury litigation for both plaintiffs and defendants. For injured individuals seeking justice, and for the insurance companies and businesses defending against claims, understanding recoverable costs directly impacts the financial outcome of a lawsuit.

For Personal Injury Plaintiffs:

1. Financial Relief for Litigation Expenses: Winning a personal injury lawsuit means not just recovering damages for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering, but also potentially recouping substantial out-of-pocket litigation expenses. CCP § 1033.5 allows plaintiffs to recover filing fees, deposition costs (often a major expense), court reporter fees, certain expert witness fees, and other necessary expenses, which can significantly offset the financial burden of pursuing a claim.
2. Strategic Decisions: Knowledge of recoverable costs informs strategic decisions. Plaintiffs’ attorneys must carefully consider which expenses are “reasonably necessary” to ensure they can be recovered. For instance, while multiple expert consultations might be beneficial, only court-ordered experts or those specifically allowed by other statutes can have their fees recovered as costs.
3. Settlement Negotiations: The potential for cost recovery is a crucial factor in settlement negotiations. A defendant knows that if they lose at trial, they will not only pay the judgment but also the plaintiff’s allowable costs, increasing their overall exposure. This can incentivize defendants to make reasonable settlement offers to avoid further cost accumulation.

For Personal Injury Defendants (and their Insurers):

1. Managing Exposure: Defendants, typically insurance companies or large corporations, are keenly aware of their potential liability for costs in addition to damages. This statute helps them calculate their maximum exposure if they lose a case.
2. Challenging Unreasonable Costs: CCP § 1033.5 provides defendants with the legal basis to challenge (or “tax”) a plaintiff’s claimed costs if they believe they were not reasonably necessary, reasonable in amount, or otherwise not allowable under the statute. This mechanism prevents plaintiffs from inflating their cost claims.
3. Prevailing Party Advantage: If a personal injury defendant successfully defends against a claim (e.g., gets a defense verdict or the plaintiff recovers nothing), they, as the prevailing party, can use CCP § 1033.5 to recover their own allowable costs from the plaintiff. This can be a significant deterrent for frivolous lawsuits.
4. Impact of CCP § 998 Offers: The interaction with CCP § 998 (offer to compromise) is critical. If a defendant makes a reasonable settlement offer that a personal injury plaintiff rejects, and the plaintiff later fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the plaintiff may lose the right to recover their post-offer costs and may even be ordered to pay the defendant’s expert witness costs. This provides a powerful tool for defendants to encourage settlement and manage risk.

In summary, Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5 is a foundational statute in California personal injury litigation. It provides the framework for who pays what after a case concludes, influencing everything from pre-litigation strategy to final judgment enforcement. Understanding its intricacies is vital for legal professionals and individuals navigating the complexities of personal injury claims in California.