Lower Court Implicitly Extended The Deadline When Plaintiff’s Attorney Indicated Not Receiving The Trial Cost Memorandum (Which Was Cured), With Plaintiff Also Not Showing The Allowed Costs Were Improper—No Reversible Error.
In Kirk v. Quirino, Case No. B340782 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 11, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a car accident case, with the lower court amending a judgment to include trial and appellate routine costs of $45,877 after plaintiff filed no motion to strike or tax costs to the two costs memoranda. The appellate court affirmed those awards, because (1) the lower court implicitly granted an extension of time to serve the trial memorandum of costs when plaintiff’s counsel said he did not get the memorandum because he changed office addresses (with defense counsel sending to the new address); and (2) there was no prejudicial, reversible error because the claimed costs were allowable. The lesson for practitioners is that the failure to challenge a costs memorandum by filing a motion to strike or tax is a forfeiture of any objections. (Douglas v. Willis, 27 Cal.App.4th 287, 290 (1994).)