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

Filed 6/16/15 Williams v. Law Offices of Carlin & Buchsbaum CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.