Samarkos v. Goddard CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D067533 · 2015-10-28 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 37-2009-00063736-CU-PA-CTL
Trial judge: Judith F. Hayes
Outcome: reversed — Reversed.
Area: civil
Panel: Joan K. Irion (author), McINTYRE, Patricia D. Benke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:05Z · confidence high

The trial court issued a postjudgment order granting the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's cost memorandum and partially granting the defendant's motion to tax the plaintiff's costs. The Court of Appeal reversed this order because the underlying judgment had been reversed in a concurrent appeal, rendering the costs order invalid.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Postjudgment order granting plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's cost memorandum and partially granting defendant's motion to tax plaintiff's costs “Because an award of costs is 'merely incidental' to a judgment (Purdy v. Johnson (1929) 100 Cal.App. 416, 420), ' [a]n order awarding costs falls with a reversal of the judgment on which it is based' ' (Allen v. Smith (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1284).”	unclear	error	agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the well-established legal principle that an order awarding costs is incidental to the judgment and must be reversed if the underlying judgment is reversed. Since the court concurrently reversed the judgment in the related case, the costs order necessarily fell with it.

Authorities

relied: Purdy v. Johnson (1929) 100 Cal.App. 416 — An award of costs is merely incidental to a judgment.
relied: Allen v. Smith (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1270 — An order awarding costs falls with a reversal of the judgment on which it is based.
relied: Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018 — Accords with the principle that costs orders fall with the reversal of the underlying judgment.
relied: Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Technology (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1342 — Supports the court's authority to take judicial notice of its own file in a related case.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound and relies on binding precedent to reverse the costs order. It correctly identifies that the reversal of the underlying judgment necessitates the reversal of the incidental costs order.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence medium

The trial court entered a postjudgment order granting plaintiff Samarkos's motion to strike defendant Goddard's cost memorandum and granting in part and denying in part Goddard's motion to tax Samarkos's costs, following a $15,000 jury verdict for Samarkos. The Court of Appeal reversed the cost order solely because it had reversed the underlying judgment in a concurrently filed opinion (D066284), rendering the cost order without a foundation.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Postjudgment order granting Samarkos's motion to strike Goddard's cost memorandum and granting in part and denying in part Goddard's motion to tax Samarkos's cost memorandum “In the present appeal, since the Judgment is now reversed, we must also reverse the Order.”	unclear	error	agree with court The court did not review the merits of the cost rulings or apply any standard of review; it reversed derivatively because the underlying judgment was reversed. The principle that a cost award falls with reversal of the judgment on which it rests is well settled (Allen v. Smith; Purdy v. Johnson), and the court's disposition follows directly from it. The trial court's order was not erroneous when made; it simply lost its foundation.

Authorities

relied: Allen v. Smith (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1270 — An order awarding costs falls with a reversal of the judgment on which it is based; after reversal, the matter of trial costs is set at large.
relied: Purdy v. Johnson (1929) 100 Cal.App. 416 — An award of costs is merely incidental to the judgment.
relied: Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018 — A cost order falls with reversal of the underlying judgment.
relied: Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Technology (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1342 — An appellate court may take judicial notice on its own motion of its file in a related appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the settled rule that a cost award is incidental to the judgment and falls when the judgment is reversed, citing apt authority. It does not address the merits of the cost dispute, but it did not need to given that the underlying judgment was reversed in the companion appeal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 10/28/15 Samarkos v. Goddard CA4/1 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREA SAMARKOS, D067533

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2009-00063736- CU-PA-CTL) THOMAS E. GODDARD, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Judith F.

Hayes, Judge. Reversed.

Michael Maguire & Associates, Paul Kevin Wood; Law Office of Cherie A. Enge and Cherie A. Enge for Defendant and Appellant.

The Simon Law Group, Robert T. Simon; Niddrie, Fish & Addams, John S.

Addams for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Thomas E. Goddard appeals from a postjudgment order of the superior court granting the motion of plaintiff Andrea Samarkos to strike Goddard's cost memorandum and granting in part and denying in part Goddard's motion to tax Samarkos's cost memorandum (Order). In an opinion filed concurrently in case number D066284, we reversed the judgment underlying the Order.1 Accordingly, we will reverse the Order.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In case number D066284, the trial court entered a judgment on a jury verdict in which the jury awarded Samarkos damages in the amount of $15,000 (Judgment).

Samarkos appealed from the Judgment.

Based on the Judgment in favor of Samarkos and Goddard's statutory offer to compromise that preceded the trial, each party claimed to be a prevailing party for certain purposes and filed a memorandum of costs.2 (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032 (Samarkos), 998 (Goddard).) Goddard moved to strike or tax Samarkos's memorandum of costs, and Samarkos moved to strike or tax Goddard's memorandum and amended memorandum of costs. Each party filed written opposition to the other party's motion, and Goddard filed a reply to Samarkos's opposition.

In November 2014, the court issued a tentative ruling and held a hearing at which the court entertained oral argument, requested supplemental briefing, and ultimately took the matter under submission. The parties filed supplemental briefing and evidence, and 1 On our own motion, we take judicial notice of our file in case number D066284. (Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Technology (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1347, fn. 3.)

2 Goddard filed an amended memorandum of costs.

2 the court issued its Order on December 10, 2014.3 In the Order, the court granted Samarkos's motion to strike Goddard's memorandum of costs and granted in part and denied in part Goddard's motion to tax Samarkos's memorandum of costs.

Goddard timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction of this appeal under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(2).

Meanwhile, the appeal in case number D066284 proceeded, and by opinion filed today, we reversed the Judgment.

DISCUSSION

Because an award of costs is "merely incidental" to a judgment (Purdy v. Johnson (1929) 100 Cal.App. 416, 420), " '[a]n order awarding costs falls with a reversal of the judgment on which it is based' " (Allen v. Smith (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1284).

(Accord, Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1027).

"After reversal of a judgment 'the matter of trial costs [is] set at large.' " (Allen, at p. 1284.)

In the present appeal, since the Judgment is now reversed, we must also reverse the Order.

3 The court served the Order on December 11, 2014. 3 DISPOSITION The minute order dated December 10, 2014, is reversed.

IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

MCINTYRE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Technology, Inc. H037884 · 2015-06-23
Harris v. WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB E048585 · 2010-05-21
Allen v. Smith D036608 · 2002-01-23
Purdy v. Johnson Docket No. 6542. · 1929-08-22