Cases: Costs

Block Billing, Costs, Hourly Rates, Laffey Matrix, Multipliers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: This Next Case Is A Poster Child For How NOT To Support Or Defend Fee And Costs Motions

Cases: Block Billing, Cases: Costs, Cases: Hourly Rates, Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

In The End, The Defense May Have Gotten The Better Side Of It, But The Appellate Court Rejected That Nothing Was Owed To Plaintiff—The Reduced Fee Award Affirmed In No Uncertain Terms In A Remanded Voting Rights Case. We hardly know where to start on this one, but Robles v. City of Ontario, Case No.

Civil Rights, Costs: Lower Court’s Entry Of $15,397.96 In Routine Costs Against FEHA Non-Prevailing Plaintiff Had To Be Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

Lower Court Made No Predicate Finding That The Action Was Frivolous, With Boilerplate Language In Judgment Not Showing Express Findings Were Made To That Effect. San Diego-Tomas v. Aspire Bakeries, LLC, Case No. A175977 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 2, 2026) (unpublished) is a situation where a FEHA non-prevailing plaintiff lost a summary judgment motion

Costs, Section 998: After Refusing To Grant Terminating Sanctions And After The Defense Won A Jury Trial Against Plaintiff, The Lower Court Erred In Taxing Expert Witness Fees Altogether Given The Valid/Reasonable/Good Faith Section 998 Offer Made By The Defense

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

Case Remanded To Consider The Defense Request For $288,733.55 In Expert Witness Fees. CCP section 998 can be a game changer, as it was in this case.  Plaintiff rejected a substantial 998 monetary offer, was defensed at trial, and will be subject to some imposition of expert witness fees incurred by the defense.  The dramatic

Costs, Deadlines, SLAPP: Where SLAPP Motions And Dismissals On Them Did Not Resolve The Case Against All Defendants, The Prevailing SLAPP Defendants Did Not Face The 15-Day Memorandum Of Costs Deadline Generally Applying When The Case Is Fully Resolved

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: SLAPP

The Costs Memo Filing 10 Days Past The 15-Day Deadline Was No Problem, Given That The 15-Day Deadline Did Not Start To Accrue. What caught our eye in Amirtalesh v. Beverly Hills Properties, LLC, Case Nos. B339300 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 28, 2026) (unpublished) was the discussion on whether prevailing SLAPP defendants

Costs, Multipliers, Reasonableness of Fees, Requests For Admission: $200,000 Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Elderly Patient In A Senior Facility, Over A 60% Reduction From The Requested Lodestar Fees, Was Affirmed On Appeal Based On Negative Multiplier Factors And The Abuse Of Discretion Review Standard

Cases: Costs, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Requests for Admission

Lower Court Also Did Not Err In Taxing Costs For Unreasonable, Unused Photocopies of Exhibits and Enlargements. In Aud v. RRT Enterprises, LP, Case No. B340727 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 26, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff sued for elder abuse under two statutes (including a Health & Safety Code provision) and negligence, with a jury finding

Costs, Quantum Meruit: Discharged Attorneys Not Paid By Client Had $60,000 Damages Award Stricken For Insufficient Evidence

Cases: Costs, Cases: Quantum Meruit

Attorneys Did Not Present Any Evidence Of Hourly Rate Or Hours Worked; However, Costs Award Was Affirmed. Pacific Attorney Group v. Nejad, Case No. G064975 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 14, 2026) (unpublished) is a good reminder of the type of evidence that discharged attorneys must present to obtain a quantum meruit damages award for

Costs: Awardable Appeal Costs Are Specifically Listed, Not Incorporating A More General “Necessary/Reasonable To The Conduct Of The Litigation” Test Applicable To Trial Discretionary Routine Cost Awards

Cases: Costs

CRC, Rule 8.278 Is More Constricted In Scope Gigena v. Finch, Case No. C104947 (2d Dist. July 30, 2026) (unpublished) involved an appeal of appellate routine costs under CRC 8.278, with an in pro per litigant’s appellate costs request being significantly reduced at the trial court level.  The Third District affirmed, but in doing so

Costs, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: $379,280.25 Prevailing Party Award Under A Contractual Fees Clause Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

. . . However, A Costs Item For Models And Exhibit Photocopies Was Stricken On Appeal, Because Costs Relating To A Demurrer Hearing Are Not Recoverable Because Costs Statute Only Applies To Trier Of Fact Stages Of The Litigation. Marosi v. TriCo Bancoshares, Case No. H051989 et al. (6th Dist. July 20, 2026) (unpublished) is

Scroll to Top