Karnazes

BACKGROUND

On December 31, 2012, this court filed a two-page order in Karnazes v. Hartford, which order dismissed Karnazes’s cross-appeal, concluding as follows: “Cross-appellant [Karnazes] having failed to procure the record on appeal within the time allowed, the

1 cross-appeal, filed on October 1, 2012, is dismissed. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.140(b)(1).” On March 25, 2013, we issued a partial remittitur which, as pertinent here, stated that “Appellant [Hartford] to recover costs.” On March 29, 2013, Hartford filed a memorandum of costs on appeal. The memorandum was on the proper Judicial Council form, and signed by Hartford’s attorney, Albert Lee, under penalty of perjury. The memorandum claimed four items of costs, as follows: $390.00 for filing fees; $67.50 for preparation of reporter’s transcript; $5.00 for expenses of service; and $165.00 for transmission and filing of record, briefs, and other papers. The total of the claimed costs was $627.50. On April 17, 2013, Karnazes filed a motion to strike and/or tax costs (motion). Her memorandum in support of the motion was six pages long, with one argument: her motion should be granted because “Hartford and Lee have…