Filed 6/30/26 Miri v. AlignerCo Corp. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 publi-
cation or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or-
dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
SARA MIRI,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
A174362
v.
ALIGNERCO CORP., (Alameda County
Super. Ct. No.
Defendant and Respondent.
23CV030735)
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
This case returns to us on appeal from an order granting in part a
motion to tax costs. In our prior opinion (Miri v. AlignerCo Corp. (July 10,
2025, A172220) [nonpub. opn.]),2 we affirmed an order granting a motion for
terminating sanctions and the subsequent judgment of dismissal. Defendant
AlignerCo thereafter filed a memorandum of costs for $2,710, primarily for
filing and motion fees, and e-filing and e-service fees.
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California
1
Standards of Judicial Administration section 8.1. We discuss the factual
background only briefly as the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the
case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847,
851.)
On our own motion, we take judicial notice of our prior opinion in
2
Miri v. AlignerCo Corp., supra, A172220. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459, subd. (a).)
1
Plaintiff Sara Miri moved to tax all costs. She complained AlignerCo
had not supplied “any kind of supporting documentation” in connection with
its memorandum of costs, costs for copies were not allowable “under [Code of
Civil Procedure] § 1033.5(b)(3),” some of the claimed costs had been incurred
in a different legal proceeding between the parties (a civil harassment
proceeding Miri filed against defense counsel), and she lacked the ability to
pay, in any event, and therefore “should be exempt” from costs.
After a contested hearing, the trial court granted Miri’s motion in part,
taxing $1,224.10 of costs sought by AlignerCo, largely on the ground these
costs pertained to the other legal proceeding. It also found several items
were duplicative. Miri was therefore left to bear $1,485.90 in costs.
“We generally apply the abuse of discretion standard of review when
evaluating a ruling on a motion to tax costs or one addressing a motion for
attorney fees. (Valenti v. City of San Diego (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 218,
231. . . .) Under the abuse of discretion standard, ‘ “[t]he trial court’s findings
of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are
reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only
if arbitrary and capricious.” ’ (Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co.
(2016) 62 Cal.4th 1081, 1100. . . .)” (G.F. Galaxy Corp. v. Johnson (2024)
100 Cal.App.5th 542, 551.) We “apply the de novo standard only to the trial
court’s interpretation of the statute. We review the court’s application of the
relevant statutes to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion.” (Ibid.)
Miri’s opening brief is not a model of clarity. As best we can discern,
she is advancing most of the same arguments she made in the trial court—
AlignerCo did not adequately support its claimed costs, costs for copies are
not recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision
(b)(3), and she should be exempt from costs, in any event, because she is
2
proceeding in forma pauperis. She has not, however, addressed the
applicable standard of review or cited any legal authority in support of her
assertion that the trial court abused its discretion or committed legal error,
and has therefore failed to carry her burden, as the appellant, on appeal.
“The most fundamental rule of appellate review is that the judgment or order
challenged on appeal is presumed to be correct, and it is the appellant’s
burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.” (Argueta v. Worldwide Flight
Services, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 822, 833, citing Jameson v. Desta (2018)
5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609.) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present
meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to
facts in the record that support the claim of error.” (In re S.C. (2006)
138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) “ ‘All intendments and presumptions are indulged
to support [the judgment] on matters as to which the record is silent, and
error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) In any case, her contentions on appeal are meritless.
Support for claimed costs. AlignerCo submitted a signed memorandum
of costs and supporting worksheet and attachments. As the trial court
observed, the costs sought appeared to be recoverable. Thus, unless Miri
demonstrated they were not allowable, the costs were not subject to being
taxed. (See Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 211,
222.) In other words, contrary to Miri’s claim, AlignerCo was not required to
submit “receipts or other documentation” of its claimed costs. (Bach v.
County of Butte (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 294, 308 [“There [is] no requirement
that copies of bills, invoices, statements or any other such documents be
attached to the memorandum. . . .”].) If counsel so verifies the memorandum
of costs, that memorandum is considered prima facie evidence that the costs
requested were necessarily incurred. (Ibid.)
3
Costs for copies and duplicative costs. Miri continues to insist costs
were improperly allowed for copying expenses, citing Code of Civil Procedure
section 1033.5, subdivision (b)(3). Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5,
subdivision (b)(3) provides: “The following items are not allowable as costs,
except when expressly authorized by law: [¶] . . . [¶] (3) Postage, telephone,
and photocopying charges, except for exhibits.” Pointing to AlignerCo’s
supporting attachment 14, she maintains AlignerCo sought costs for copying.
She misreads this attachment. It is titled “14. Fees for electronic filing or
service of documents thrugh [sic] an electronic filing service provider.”
(Italics added & boldface omitted.) It then lists a host of documents that
were served or filed. These are variously described. Some are preceded by
the word “File” (e.g., “File Motion to Strike”), others are preceded by the word
“copy” (e.g., “Copy of Motion w Dept One,” “Courtesy Copy of Motion to
Dept”). The point is, by all appearances, these were either documents that
were filed or documents (or copies thereof) that were served. That is plainly
what the trial court concluded, and Miri presented nothing to undermine the
facial validity of these claimed costs.
Miri also asserts attachment 14 was rife with duplicative filing and
service costs, pointing again to the shorthand descriptors used. But it is no
surprise, for example, that there are repeated references to service of a
“motion.” Moreover, each listed document is accompanied by a date, i.e., the
date of filing or service, and there is nothing in this litany that suggests
duplication. Again, it is apparent that the trial court, which was fully
familiar with the case, concluded the list of filed or served documents was
accurate and reasonable.
Ability to pay. Miri’s final argument is that she should not bear costs,
in any event, because she does not have the ability to pay them. The law,
4
however, is to the contrary. (LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th
1116, 1124–1125 [losing litigant’s ability to pay is not a factor considered
under Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5]; see Heller v. Pillsbury Madison & Sutro
(1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1395, 1397 [rejecting losing party’s contention
that trial court abused its discretion in not considering the parties’ respective
financial positions in awarding costs pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1032].)
DISPOSITION
The order dated August 11, 2025, granting in part and denying in part
appellant’s motion to tax costs is AFFIRMED. Parties to bear their own costs
on appeal.
5
_________________________
Banke, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Humes, P. J.
_________________________
Smiley, J.
A174362, Miri v. AlignerCo Corp.
6