City Hall Funds May Be Used to Pay for Drainage Improvements Agreed to Under Settlement Agreement. Over the last couple of years, we have reported on the San Juan Capistrano-Scalzo Family Trust dispute, in which SJC got hit with a $9.4 million judgment inclusive of litigation expenses in a battle over a proposed 31-lot […]
Fees Justified Under Government Code Section 800 and Revenue and Taxation Code Section 1611.6; Costs Of $19,788.92 Justified Under CCP § 1032. Here are two companion cases from the Fifth District, Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. County of Madera, Case Nos. F059256 and F059621 (Apr. 20, 2011) (unpublished), discussing fee-shifting statutes we do
Carmack Act Apportionment Provision Was At Issue. Here is one that involves two carriers being sued and then battling it out for apportionment of responsibility and costs. The Carmack Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14706(b), has a specific provision allowing for apportionment of costs between carriers, including reasonable expenses incurred in defending an action
Deadline Argument Did Not Prevail Under the Circumstances. Here is a real corker in our “Arbitration” category, especially for those of you who are procedurally oriented. In Williams v. Joseph Phelps Vineyards LLC, Case No. A127708 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 19, 2011) (unpublished), vineyard and affiliated individuals were ordered by an
You Gotta Read On To See What Happens. This one started out badly for attorney. A trial judge imposed three types of awards against plaintiff”s attorney: (1) a $2,035 award for partial discovery referee expenses; (2) a $2,335 award for plaintiff’s deposition nonappearance; and (3) a CCP § 177.5 award of $1,500 for
However, Routine Costs Denial Was Reversed. The next case we survey teaches two lessons: (1) pay attention to mediation condition precedent clauses very closely, and (2) routine costs may be available to a prevailing party even if fee entitlement is foreclosed. In Horton v. Hamel, Case No. A128024 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr.
Second District, Division 6 So Holds — Using Pragmatic Standard for Fee Recovery. Here is one which teaches that the “prevailing party” determination is a fluid, pragmatically-based determination, as we have explored in many past posts. Rocketstar Robotics, Inc. v. California Motors, LLC, Case No. B226326 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 19, 2011)
Appellate Court Did State that Prevailing Party Could Renew Fee and/or Costs Request. Carrick v. County of Santa Cruz, Case No. H035841 (6th Dist. Apr. 18, 2011) (unpublished) is an interesting illustration of our POOF! principle. There, a homeowner embroiled with a County for maintaining unpermitted structures on his property was hit with
One Party Prevails, But Still Suffers Adverse Judgment of Over $2 Million When Opponent Also Prevailed. This next case is a sobering reminder that “prevailing party” determinations do not necessarily result in one winner in multi-claim litigation. Even though one party might prevail and obtain a substantial fee/costs award, the other party–if that
Follow Up to Our September 18, 2010 Post. In our September 18, 2010 post, we reported on a $291,534.04 costs/disbursements award entered against Chris and Lori Coble, who lost a wrongful death lawsuit against Caltrans arising from a truck-car accident taking the lives of their three children. We can report that Caltrans
