DISCUSSION

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700, requires a motion to strike or tax costs to be served and filed within 15 days after service of the memorandum of costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(1).) In this case, Williams was therefore required to file a motion addressing the trial costs in December, 2011. The memorandum of costs on

1 The opinion in case B236992 was not published. The background statement of facts is based on that opinion.

2 Although Williams filed a document with the trial court referring to an objection on June 12, 2013, the objection is not in the record before this court, and there is no record that a motion to tax costs was ever filed. Even if the document was in the record, and was properly construed as a motion to strike or tax, it was untimely.

2 appeal, served on May 3, 2013, required Williams to file a motion as to those costs no later than May 23, 2013. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1013.) The record contains no motion to strike or tax costs filed at either time. Williams argues on appeal that the award of costs for electronic legal research was unauthorized. However, her failure to file a timely motion on this ground, or any ground, has forfeited her right to challenge the costs. (Douglas v. Willis (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 287, 289 [failure to file motion to tax waives the right to object]; Santos v. Civil Service Bd. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1442, 1447 [failure to file motion is a “waiver of the right to object.”]; Hydratec, Inc. v. Sun Valley 260 Orchard & Vineyard Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 924, 929 [failure to file is a waiver; time provisions are mandatory].) Accordingly, William’s challenge has been forfeited, and we affirm.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Respondents are to recover their costs on appeal.

ZELON, J.

We concur:

PERLUSS, P. J.

STROBEL, J. 

 Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution

3