Appellant’s Claim For An Offset Based On An Appellate Costs Award Was Rejected Because Appellant Failed To Renew His Judgment Before The 10-Year Deadline Ran.
In Henry v. Dawson, Case No. G061115 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 15, 2022) (unpublished), the 4/3 DCA affirmed that CourtCall and electronic filing expenses are allowable in the discretion of the lower court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(c)(4); LandWatch San Luis Obispo County v. Cambria Community Services Dist., 25 Cal.App.5th 638, 646 (2018) [CourtCall is not a prohibited telephone charge, but a means by which a party can make an appearance without being physically present in court].) Appellant also requested an offset for a prior appellate costs award; however, because such an award constitutes a separate judgment (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Wilshire Center Marketplace, 89 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1419 (2001)), his failure to renew the appellate costs judgment—which was still valid when a motion was filed—means there was no valid judgment to offset given that the motion did not toll the mandate to renew the judgment (something which was not done).
Justice Moore authored the 3-0 opinion.
Comments