However, Because Statute Allowing CourtCall Costs As Being Mandatory Was Repealed, Matter Had To Be Remanded To Determine If It Was A Correct Discretionary Costs Matter Under The General Routine Costs Statute.
Prevailing defendant, winning on a summary judgment motion, was granted certain costs for deposition transcripts and record subpoenas given that co-counsel needed the deposition transcripts, and the subpoenaed records were relevant on damages before defendant obtained summary judgment. The 4/3 DCA, in Safavi v. Ritzau, Case No. G062901 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 6, 2025) (unpublished), affirmed those determinations.
However, it did reverse and remand a minimal costs award of CourtCall expenses because it was granted under CCP § 367.6(c), which was repealed on January 1, 2023 before the costs award was issued [that provision made it mandatory to award CourtCall expenses] such that it was not good authority for a costs award. However, the appellate panel did remand to allow the lower court to grant the requested fees under the discretionary provision of CCP § 1033.5(c)(4), where cases have allowed CourtCall expenses to be awarded. The amount was around $376, so we can only assume this matter will be settled before a remand is necessary—but who knows! Justice Scott authored the 3-0 opinion.