Cases: Costs

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 Pacific Attorney Group v. Nejad, Case No. G064975 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 14, 2026) (unpublished) is a good reminder of the type of evidence that discharged attorneys must present to obtain a quantum meruit damages award for […]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 July 30, 2026) (unpublished) involved an appeal of appellate routine costs under CRC 8.278, with an in pro per litigant’s appellate costs request being significantly reduced at the trial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 July 20, 2026) (unpublished) is

Allocation, Costs, Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party On Appeal:  HOA Was The Prevailing Party For Appellate Costs And Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

. . . But Fees Had To Be Allocated To Only Successful Claims Because Opponent Prevailed On Some Issues. The Colony at Cal. Oaks HOA v. Majestic Asset Mgt., LLC, Case No. D083140 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 18, 2026) (unpublished) was an HOA versus certain member dispute involving a golf course.  The case, on

Costs: $38,568.63 Costs Award For Administrative Record Preparation In Favor Of Prevailing City Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs

Plaintiff’s Failure To Include The Costs Memorandum Was Fatal. Citizens Against Marketplace Apt./Condominium Development v. City of San Ramon, Case Nos. A170988 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 24, 2026) (partially published; costs discussion not published) dealt with a $38,568.63 costs award to City for administrative record preparation in a case where it prevailed

Costs: Prevailing Party’s Cost Memorandum Was Timely Filed After Entry Of Judgment On A Retrial Following An Earlier Granting Of A New Trial Motion

Cases: Costs

Also, Appellant’s Apportionment Argument Based On Relative Successes Had No Factual Analysis, So It Was Rejected. In Mileck v. Mileck, Case No. A170748 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 27, 2026) (unpublished), appellant/non-prevailing party filed a motion to tax costs against the prevailing party, with the lower court only taxing $520 out a requested $29,238.98 in

Costs: Where Party Moving To Tax Appellate Costs Demonstrated That Party Paid Some Expenses, The Burden Shifted To The Costs-Claiming Party To Provide Receipts

Cases: Costs

The Motion To Tax Costs Did Shift The Burden Back To The Costs Claimant—Not Met. In Deen v. Kreditor, Case No. G064426 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 25, 2026) (unpublished), a prevailing party on a prior appeal filed a costs memorandum for appellate costs totaling $1,184.65.  The losing side filed a motion to tax appellate

Costs, Requests For Admission, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: In A Complex Water Diversion/Trespass Case, 2/7 DCA Affirms Costs Award To Defendant City, Affirms Denial Of Supplemental Fees And Costs To City Under CCP §§ 1038 & 2033.420, And Reverses Costs Award To Defendant Water Committee Based On Reversing A Judgment In Its Favor

Cases: Costs, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Acting Presiding Justice Segal Penned The 3-0 Opinion On Various Merits, Costs, And Fee Issues In A 74-Page Opinion. In Beecham v. City of Azusa, Case No. B33843 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished), deceased trustee, through a substituted personal presentative, sued two City entities (City), an irrigation company, and a water committee

Costs, Deadlines, POOF!: Although Plaintiff Won On The Merits, Substantial Fee Recovery and Routine Costs Recovery Were Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: POOF!

Fees Were Not Allowable Without A Fees Motion; Costs Were Not Allowable Because Failure To Use Judicial Council Worksheet Gave No Basis For A Conclusion On Whether The Costs Were Reasonable, In Response To Defendant’s Motion To Tax Costs. Pelloni v. Mirshahi, Case Nos. B336950 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 17, 2026) (unpublished)

Scroll to Top