Kleidman v. Technology CA6

Filed 5/10/23 Kleidman v. Technology CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

PETER KLEIDMAN, H049681 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 2013-1-CV247406)

v.

FEEVA TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

This case arises out of a previous appeal filed by plaintiff Peter Kleidman in the same matter, where this court ruled in favor of defendant Feeva Technology, Inc. (Feeva), and awarded Feeva costs as the prevailing party.1 Feeva subsequently filed a memorandum requesting $2,065.50 in costs. Kleidman moved to tax $1,500 of the costs listed for printing and copying briefs on the basis that they were excessive and unnecessary in light of the number of briefs actually filed by Feeva. The trial court denied Kleidman’s order to tax, finding that the costs requested appeared reasonable and proper. Kleidman appeals from this order. We find no merit to Kleidman’s argument and affirm the order.

1 On its own motion, this court takes judicial notice of appeal No. H041738 (Apr. 27, 2021 [nonpub. opn.]). We also grant Kleidman’s request for judicial notice of the docket in that appeal.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 A. Trial Court Order and First Appeal In June 2013, Kleidman filed a cause of action for fraud against a number of defendants, not including Feeva. He later filed an amended complaint adding Feeva as a defendant. Feeva filed an answer in September 2013. In September 2014, Kleidman filed a motion seeking an order that the law firm Kaufhold Gaskin LLP (KG) not represent Feeva. He argued that Feeva, which was a defunct company at the time, had no agent who could consent to an attorney-client relationship and U.S. Specialty Insurance Company (USSIC), Feeva’s liability insurer, lacked the authority to appoint KG as Feeva’s counsel. In October 2014, the superior court denied his motion. Kleidman appealed the trial court’s order in December 2014, arguing that Feeva’s liability insurance contract with USSIC did not give USSIC the right to select KG to represent Feeva in the absence of a tender by Feeva. This court rejected Kleidman’s argument, stating that the contract allowed USSIC to associate in the defense of any claim even if there was no tender, and found no merit to Kleidman’s other claims. This court issued a remittitur on June 29, 2021, indicating that Feeva was to recover costs. B. Feeva’s Memorandum of Costs and Kleidman’s Motion to Tax Costs On August 6, 2021, Feeva filed a memorandum of costs on appeal. Feeva requested a total of $2,065.50 in costs, which included $390 for filing fees, $1,500 for printing and copying of briefs, and $175.50 for transmitting, filing, and serving of record, briefs, and other papers. Kleidman moved to tax costs on August 23, 2021, where he objected to Feeva’s request for $1,500 in printing and copying briefs. Kleidman claimed that Feeva only filed two briefs on appeal: a 30-page long respondent’s brief and a four-page long