Kenne v. Community Corp. of Santa Monica CA2/3

California Court of Appeal Jan 30, 2026 No. B345478Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to tax costs, as the defendants' verified memorandum of costs and supporting declarations sufficiently established that the appellate costs were necessarily incurred and recoverable under the California Rules of Court.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to tax costs.
Whether a party seeking appellate costs must submit payment receipts to prove costs were incurred.
Whether the burden of proof shifted to the defendants to justify the costs claimed in their verified memorandum.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We find no abuse of discretion, and thus we affirm the order.”

“It is well established that a party is entitled to recover costs for obtaining the record on appeal and for filing a brief in the appellate matter.”

Filed 1/30/26 Kenne v. Community Corp. of Santa Monica CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

KATHLEEN A. KENNE, B345478

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC128551) v.

COMMUNITY CORPORATION OF SANTA MONICA, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa Sepe-Weisenfeld, Judge. Affirmed. Kathleen A. Kenne, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Schonbuch Hallissy and Bernadette Castillo Brouses for Defendants and Respondents.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Plaintiff Kathleen Kenne appeals from an order denying her motion to tax costs and awarding appellate costs of $4,693.73 to defendants Community Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM), Tara Barauskas, Robert Connell, Durinda Abraham, Kyong Chang, and Alan Wittert (collectively, defendants). We find no abuse of discretion, and thus we affirm the order.1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Kenne’s prior appeal. Kenne, a former tenant of CCSM, filed the present action against CCSM and five of its officers and employees asserting a variety of contract and tort claims. In October 2021, the trial court granted terminating sanctions against Kenne, and in November 2021, the court entered a judgment of dismissal. Kenne appealed from the judgment (appeal No. B317722). This court affirmed the judgment and awarded defendants “their costs on appeal.”

1 On August 21, 2025, this court deferred ruling on Kenne’s motion for judicial notice of documents filed in connection with Kenne’s prior appeals and writs. We now deny the motion because the records of which judicial notice is sought are not relevant to our resolution of this appeal. (See Coyne v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1215, 1223, fn. 3 [denying judicial notice as to documents that were not relevant to court’s analysis]; Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482 [“We also may decline to take judicial notice of matters that are not relevant to dispositive issues on appeal”].)

Kenne v. Community Corp. of Santa Monica CA2/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

KATHLEEN A. KENNE, B345478

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.

ADAMS, J.

AI Brief