Karnazes v. Hartford CA1/2

Filed 6/27/14 Karnazes v. Hartford CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

ELIZABETH KARNAZES, Plaintiff and Appellant, A139421 v. JOHN HARTFORD, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. CIV458258) Defendant and Respondent.

We deal, yet again, with an appeal involving Elizabeth Karnazes and John Hartford, who have a long history of antagonism. As our most recent opinion described the relationship, “At all relevant times, Elizabeth Karnazes and John Hartford were attorneys, and for a considerable number of years appear to have practiced together. Their parting of the ways was in no sense amicable. The courts became their battle ground, and the judges of San Mateo County the most unwilling observers of their repeated campaigns of scorched earth litigation tactics. This appeal deals with the aftermath of one of those many actions.” (Karnazes v. Hartford (Feb. 10, 2014, A136400 [nonpub. opn.].) This appeal, too, deals with the aftermath of an interim order in the same appeal— case no. A136400. BACKGROUND On December 31, 2012, this court filed a two-page order in Karnazes v. Hartford, which order dismissed Karnazes’s cross-appeal, concluding as follows: “Cross-appellant [Karnazes] having failed to procure the record on appeal within the time allowed, the

1

cross-appeal, filed on October 1, 2012, is dismissed. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.140(b)(1).” On March 25, 2013, we issued a partial remittitur which, as pertinent here, stated that “Appellant [Hartford] to recover costs.” On March 29, 2013, Hartford filed a memorandum of costs on appeal. The memorandum was on the proper Judicial Council form, and signed by Hartford’s attorney, Albert Lee, under penalty of perjury. The memorandum claimed four items of costs, as follows: $390.00 for filing fees; $67.50 for preparation of reporter’s transcript; $5.00 for expenses of service; and $165.00 for transmission and filing of record, briefs, and other papers. The total of the claimed costs was $627.50. On April 17, 2013, Karnazes filed a motion to strike and/or tax costs (motion). Her memorandum in support of the motion was six pages long, with one argument: her motion should be granted because “Hartford and Lee have failed and refused to comply with statutory requirements and the attorney’s fees and costs demanded are not reasonable or necessary.” The four paragraphs that followed did not address any of the items in the cost memorandum. Karnazes’s motion was accompanied by her declaration which, after several pages of discussion not pertinent to the cost items, did contain a section entitled “Line Item Objections,” which did discuss each of the four items claimed. Karnazes’s declaration asserted that each of the four items claimed is “vague and ambiguous, improper, unnecessary, unreasonable, is in the wrong amount,” going on to contest some of the items in more detail. On May 20, 2013, Hartford filed opposition to the motion. On May 30, 2013, Karnazes filed her reply. The motion was set for hearing for June 3, 2013. Prior to that date the trial court had issued a tentative ruling denying the motion, and Karnazes notified the court that she intended to contest the tentative ruling. The motion thus came on for hearing, and attorney Lee appeared on behalf of Hartford. Karnazes did not appear.