Zhang v. Sugars CA2/1

Filed 4/17/13 Zhang v. Sugars CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

SHUMIN ZHANG, B243152

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC466079) v.

STEVEN L. SUGARS et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Malcolm H. Mackey, Judge. Affirmed. Shumin Zhang, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.

___________________________________________

In a prior appeal (Jan. 28, 2013, B238290), we affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant-attorneys’ special motions to strike brought under the statute prohibiting strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16; undesignated section references are to that code.) By way of the present appeal, plaintiff Shumin Zhang challenges the trial court’s subsequent orders awarding defendants their costs and attorney fees. More specifically, she contends that defendants’ memorandum of costs and one of the motions for attorney fees were untimely filed and that the trial court erred in awarding costs to one of the defendants because the costs were not incurred in connection with bringing his anti-SLAPP motion. We conclude that plaintiff’s contentions lack merit and affirm. BACKGROUND The order granting the anti-SLAPP motions was filed on November 4, 2011. On May 2, 2012, defendant-attorney Steven L. Sugars filed and served plaintiff by mail with a memorandum of costs. On or about the same day, Sugars also filed and served plaintiff by mail with a motion for attorney fees. On or about May 8, 2012, defendant-attorney Paul P. Cheng filed and served plaintiff by mail with a motion for attorney fees and costs. For her part, on or about May 21, 2012, plaintiff filed and served defendants by mail with a motion to strike and tax costs; the motion was directed at Sugars’s memorandum of costs. On or about May 25, 2012, plaintiff filed and served defendants by mail with an opposition to Cheng’s motion for attorney fees. On or about June 1, 2012, she filed and served defendants with an opposition to Sugars’s motion for attorney fees. In the foregoing paragraph, we say “on or about” because the record does not include the proofs of service for the pertinent documents with the exception of Sugars’s memorandum of costs. In the absence of the proofs of service, we have relied on other information—such as the dates on which the documents were signed or file-stamped—to estimate the dates of service. Because plaintiff, as the appellant, was required to provide this court with a complete record and failed to do so, she cannot be heard to complain that we have used estimated dates of service. (See Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1038–1039; Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 987, 992.)