Williams v. Law Offices of Carlin & Buchsbaum CA2/7 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Filed 6/16/15 Williams v. Law Offices of Carlin & Buchsbaum CA2/7
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
    publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
    or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION SEVEN
    YOULANDA O. WILLIAMS,                                                B257137
    Plaintiff and Appellant,                                    (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. BC448650)
    v.
    THE LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN &
    BUCHSBAUM et al.,
    Defendants and Respondents.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Michael Stern,
    Judge. Affirmed.
    Paul Kujawsky attorney for Youlanda O. Williams, Plaintiff and Appellant.
    Law Offices of Carlin & Buchsbaum, Gary R. Carlin and Ronald L. Zambrano
    attorneys for Defendants and Respondents.
    ____________________________
    Appellant Youlanda Williams challenges the order of costs entered by the trial
    court. As the record demonstrates that Williams failed to file a motion to tax costs, the
    issue has been forfeited. We affirm.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    Youlanda Williams sued her attorneys, the Law Offices of Carlin & Buchsbaum
    and Gary Carlin (law firm) after they had represented her in her claims against the Los
    Angeles Unified School District. In November, 2011, the trial court entered judgment on
    the law firm’s motion for summary judgment, and Williams appealed. In a decision filed
    on March 27, 2013, this court affirmed the judgment, and ordered costs on appeal to the
    law firm.1
    The law firm had filed and served a memorandum of costs as prevailing party on
    November 16, 2011 and filed an additional memorandum of costs on appeal after the
    remittitur issued. Williams did not file a timely objection or a motion to tax costs and, on
    April 11, 2014, the court awarded costs in the amounts requested.2 Williams appeals,
    asserting that one of the cost items, for electronic legal research, was improperly
    awarded.
    DISCUSSION
    California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700, requires a motion to strike or tax costs to
    be served and filed within 15 days after service of the memorandum of costs. (Cal. Rules
    of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(1).) In this case, Williams was therefore required to file a
    motion addressing the trial costs in December, 2011. The memorandum of costs on
    1       The opinion in case B236992 was not published. The background statement of
    facts is based on that opinion.
    2      Although Williams filed a document with the trial court referring to an objection
    on June 12, 2013, the objection is not in the record before this court, and there is no
    record that a motion to tax costs was ever filed. Even if the document was in the record,
    and was properly construed as a motion to strike or tax, it was untimely.
    2
    appeal, served on May 3, 2013, required Williams to file a motion as to those costs no
    later than May 23, 2013. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1013.) The record contains no motion to
    strike or tax costs filed at either time.
    Williams argues on appeal that the award of costs for electronic legal research was
    unauthorized. However, her failure to file a timely motion on this ground, or any ground,
    has forfeited her right to challenge the costs. (Douglas v. Willis (1994) 
    27 Cal. App. 4th 287
    , 289 [failure to file motion to tax waives the right to object]; Santos v. Civil Service
    Bd. (1987) 
    193 Cal. App. 3d 1442
    , 1447 [failure to file motion is a “waiver of the right to
    object.”]; Hydratec, Inc. v. Sun Valley 260 Orchard & Vineyard Co. (1990) 
    223 Cal. App. 3d 924
    , 929 [failure to file is a waiver; time provisions are mandatory].)
    Accordingly, William’s challenge has been forfeited, and we affirm.
    DISPOSITION
    The order is affirmed. Respondents are to recover their costs on appeal.
    ZELON, J.
    We concur:
    PERLUSS, P. J.
    STROBEL, J. 
    
    Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
    article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B257137

Filed Date: 6/16/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/16/2015