Second District, Division 8 Decides In Unpublished Decision.
In Martin v. Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing, Case No. B251186 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 9, 2014) (unpublished), a litigant hit with routine costs argued he was denied due process based on the lower court’s later award of routine costs without argument of counsel in a judgment leaving a ________ for costs to be added later.
This argument got rejected on appeal. There is a procedure for filing and opposing routine costs requests under the California Rules of Court, which does accord due process. When the order setting the amount of costs is filed, the clerk enters the judgment and a notice of appeal subsumes any latter order setting the amount of costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(4); Grant v. List & Lathrop, 2 Cal.App.4th 993, 998 (1992).) So, because there is procedure to contest “unspecified” costs, no due process violation occurred.