Pars Publishing Corp. v. Ordway Corporation CA4/3

Filed 12/18/23 Pars Publishing Corp. v. Ordway Corporation CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

PARS PUBLISHING CORP.,

Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and G061374 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2015-00826325) v. OPINION ORDWAY CORPORATION,

Defendant, Cross-complainant, and Respondent.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, John C. Gastelum, Judge. Affirmed. Request for judicial notice is denied. Thomas Vogele & Associates, Thomas A. Vogele; Kowal Law Group and Timothy M. Kowal for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and Appellant. Godes & Preis, Joseph M. Preis and Joshua R. Mino for Defendant, Cross- complainant, and Respondent.

Pars Publishing Corp. appeals from a postjudgment order awarding Ordway Corporation $68,411.99 in costs. Pars argues the trial court erred in awarding a portion of the costs because they were not verified. Because Pars did not raise this issue at trial, its contention is forfeited. We affirm the postjudgment order. FACTS A complete recitation of the facts can be found in our contemporaneously filed nonpublished opinion Pars Publishing Corp. v. Ordway Corporation (Dec. 18, 2023, G061270). Suffice it to say, Pars bought a half-million dollar digital printer from Ordway. The parties disagree concerning the reason, but Pars asked to return the printer. Ordway refused. The printer was repossessed. Pars sued Ordway for, among other things, breach of contract. Ordway filed a counterclaim for breach of contract. The jury returned verdicts for Ordway on Pars’s claims and Ordway on its breach of contract claim for varnish, foil, and swabs (consumables) in the amount of $6,766.37. We affirmed. (Pars Publishing Corp. v. Ordway Corporation, supra, G061270.) Ordway filed a memorandum of costs in the amount of $72,469.25 using Judicial Council form No. MC-010 (form approved for optional use). Ordway’s counsel (Joshua Mino) signed the form under the following: “I am the attorney, agent, or party who claims these costs. To the best of my knowledge and belief this memorandum of costs is correct and these costs were necessarily incurred in this case.” Pars filed a motion to strike or tax costs in the amount of $44,354.03 (the 1 difference was $28,115.22 ) because there was no evidence the costs were incurred and costs were not recoverable. Pars did not argue Judicial Council form MC-010 was not 2 properly verified pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1) and Code of