PG&E v. McColm CA3

Filed 1/8/26 PG&E v. McColm CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Trinity) ----

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, C102038

Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent,

(Super. Ct. No. 10CV065)

v.

PATRICIA A. MCCOLM,

Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.

This appeal arises from a post-judgment order awarding $2,391.09 in costs on appeal to plaintiff Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Defendant Patricia A. McColm (McColm), proceeding in propria persona, argues that the trial court committed numerous errors in denying her motion to strike or tax costs. We conclude that McColm’s contentions either are forfeited on appeal or lack merit. Therefore, we affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND PG&E filed this action seeking a prescriptive easement across McColm’s property, an injunction to prevent interference with the easement, and damages. (Pacific Gas &

1

Electric Co. v. McColm (May 31, 2023, No. C080984) [2023 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3205, at p. [1]].) McColm filed a cross-complaint alleging claims for quiet title, injunctive relief, breach of contract, and trespass. (Ibid.) After a bench trial, the trial court granted judgment in favor of PG&E and against McColm. (Ibid.) McColm appealed, and we affirmed. (Ibid.) We awarded PG&E its costs on appeal. (Ibid.) Our remittitur was issued on September 13, 2023. In June 2023, before the remittitur issued, PG&E filed a costs memorandum, seeking $2,391.09 for costs incurred on appeal. McColm filed a motion to strike the memorandum as prematurely filed before issuance of the remittitur. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(c).) In response, on September 26, 2023, PG&E filed an amended costs memorandum, seeking the same $2,391.09 in costs as the first memorandum. On October 16, 2023, McColm filed a motion to strike or tax the cost bill, arguing that (1) the amended memorandum was void because it was tied to the premature initial memorandum; and (2) PG&E failed to show the claimed costs were reasonably incurred and necessary to the conduct of the litigation. PG&E opposed the motion, arguing that the amended costs memorandum was timely and that all the costs claimed were proper, reasonable in amount, and necessarily incurred. McColm filed a declaration and a supplemental declaration in reply. On October 19, 2023, the Honorable Margaret Johnson (retired judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) was assigned to sit as a Trinity County Superior Court judge for the purpose of hearing the post-trial motion. After a series of continuances, the motion to strike or tax costs was heard on May 20, 2024. Judge Johnson and PG&E’s counsel appeared remotely via videoconference (Zoom). McColm, in propria persona, appeared in person. After hearing argument, the court announced that it would deny the motion to strike or tax. The court ordered PG&E to prepare a formal order for the court’s signature.