Court Opinion

ID: 9910841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-18 18:02:44.399164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:38.077890
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/18/23 Pars Publishing Corp. v. Ordway Corporation CA4/3

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                     FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                DIVISION THREE

 PARS PUBLISHING CORP.,

      Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and                                  G061374
      Appellant,
                                                                       (Super. Ct. No. 30-2015-00826325)
           v.
                                                                       OPINION
 ORDWAY CORPORATION,

      Defendant, Cross-complainant, and
      Respondent.

                   Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
John C. Gastelum, Judge. Affirmed. Request for judicial notice is denied.
                   Thomas Vogele & Associates, Thomas A. Vogele; Kowal Law Group and
Timothy M. Kowal for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and Appellant.
                   Godes & Preis, Joseph M. Preis and Joshua R. Mino for Defendant, Cross-
complainant, and Respondent.
              Pars Publishing Corp. appeals from a postjudgment order awarding Ordway
Corporation $68,411.99 in costs. Pars argues the trial court erred in awarding a portion
of the costs because they were not verified. Because Pars did not raise this issue at trial,
its contention is forfeited. We affirm the postjudgment order.
                                          FACTS
              A complete recitation of the facts can be found in our contemporaneously
filed nonpublished opinion Pars Publishing Corp. v. Ordway Corporation (Dec. 18,
2023, G061270). Suffice it to say, Pars bought a half-million dollar digital printer from
Ordway. The parties disagree concerning the reason, but Pars asked to return the printer.
Ordway refused. The printer was repossessed.
              Pars sued Ordway for, among other things, breach of contract. Ordway
filed a counterclaim for breach of contract. The jury returned verdicts for Ordway on
Pars’s claims and Ordway on its breach of contract claim for varnish, foil, and swabs
(consumables) in the amount of $6,766.37. We affirmed. (Pars Publishing Corp. v.
Ordway Corporation, supra, G061270.)
              Ordway filed a memorandum of costs in the amount of $72,469.25 using
Judicial Council form No. MC-010 (form approved for optional use). Ordway’s counsel
(Joshua Mino) signed the form under the following: “I am the attorney, agent, or party
who claims these costs. To the best of my knowledge and belief this memorandum of
costs is correct and these costs were necessarily incurred in this case.”
              Pars filed a motion to strike or tax costs in the amount of $44,354.03 (the
                           1
difference was $28,115.22 ) because there was no evidence the costs were incurred and
costs were not recoverable. Pars did not argue Judicial Council form MC-010 was not
                                                                            2
properly verified pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1) and Code of

1
              In its opening brief, Pars states both $28,115.22 and $22,115.22.
2
              All further rules references are to the California Rules of Court.

                                              2
Civil Procedure section 2015.5 (section 2015.5). In fact, Pars did not mention form MC-
010 or section 2015.5; it mentioned rule 3.1700 generally.
              Ordway filed an opposition to the motion to tax costs supported by
counsel’s declaration under penalty of perjury and invoices. Pars filed a reply; again it
did not raise the verification issue.
              The trial court issued a minute order granting Pars’s motion in part and
denying it in part. The court taxed costs in the amount of $4,057.26 and awarded
Ordway $68,411.99 in costs.
              About three months after the trial court’s order, the Fifth District Court of
Appeal filed its majority and concurring and dissenting nonpublished opinions in Srabian
v. Triangle Truck Ctr. (Aug. 12, 2022, F080066) (Srabian). We discuss this
nonpublished opinion below.
                                        DISCUSSION
              Pars argues the trial court erred by awarding $22,115.22 in costs because
they were not verified. Specifically, it contends the language utilized on Judicial Council
form MC-010 was insufficient because rule 3.1700(a)(1) states the “memorandum of
costs must be verified” and the word “verified” means sworn or signed under penalty of
perjury as provided in section 2015.5.
              In the trial court, Pars did not argue Judicial Council form MC-010 was not
properly verified pursuant to rule 3.1700(a)(1) and section 2015.5. Pars argued Ordway
offered insufficient evidence the costs were incurred. Over three months after the trial
court filed its order awarding Ordway costs, the Fifth Appellate District decided Srabian,
which addressed this issue. Now, on appeal, for the first time, Pars argues form MC-010
was insufficient because rule 3.1700(a)(1) requires verification as provided in section
2015.5. This claim is forfeited.
              “[I]n general, an appellate court will not review an issue that was not raised
by some proper method in the trial court. [Citation.] However, ‘[i]t is important to

                                             3
remember . . . that the purpose of this general rule is to give the trial court and parties an
opportunity to correct an error that could be corrected by some means short of an
opposite outcome in the trial court.’ [Citation.] [¶] As an exception to the general rule,
the appellate court has discretion to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal
where the relevant facts are undisputed and could not have been altered by the
presentation of additional evidence. [Citation.]” (Duran v. Obesity Research Institute,
LLC (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 635, 645-646.)
              Here, although the issue involves applying law to undisputed facts, the facts
could have been altered by the presentation of additional evidence. As Ordway asserts,
had Pars raised the issue in the trial court, Ordway’s counsel could have presented
additional evidence and a corresponding declaration under penalty of perjury. Indeed,
Pars admits it would have been satisfied had Ordway submitted additional invoices under
penalty of perjury, which it further admits would have resulted in “likely harmless error.”
Pars’s claims that Ordway failed to offer evidence of costs, costs were not recoverable,
and costs were not reasonably incurred did not preserve the legal issue Judicial Council
form MC-010 is legally deficient. To the extent Pars disputes the sufficiency of the
evidence to support the $28,115.22 in costs, which can be raised for the first time on
appeal, that claim too is forfeited. Pars fails to explain with reasoned analysis and
citation to authority why there was insufficient evidence for those costs, why the costs
were not recoverable, and why the costs were not reasonably incurred. When legal
argument with citation to authority is not furnished on a particular point, we may treat the
point as forfeited and pass it without consideration. (Martine v. Heavenly Valley Limited
Partnership (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 715, 728 [court not required to serve as the
appellants’ backup counsel and supply arguments for them].)
              On appeal, the parties spill considerable ink on Srabian. In its opening
brief, Pars spends 20 pages arguing Judicial Council form MC-010 is legally deficient
because it does not require verification pursuant to rule 3.1700(a)(1) and section 2015.5.

                                               4
Citing to rule 8.1115’s prohibition on citing to nonpublished cases, Ordway replies Pars
abandoned the issue because it copied Justice Kathleen Meehan’s dissenting opinion
verbatim. Pars does not respond to Ordway’s assertion that it copied the dissenting
opinion verbatim; it appears Pars did. Pars answers it did not cite to Srabian (indeed it
did not mention Srabian at all in its opening brief), but merely adopted the dissenting
opinion’s reasoning, which is permissible. We need not weigh in on this novel dispute.
We recognize though that with the advent of online legal databases and the posting of
nonpublished opinion we are certain the “adoption” of legal reasoning is common
practice. Because the issue is forfeited and we do not address the merits, we deny Pars’s
request we take judicial notice of Judicial Council form No. APP-013.
                                      DISPOSITION
              The postjudgment order is affirmed. Respondent shall recover its costs on
appeal.

                                                 O’LEARY, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

GOETHALS, J.

DELANEY, J.

                                             5