Cases: Costs

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 In Mileck v. Mileck, Case No. A170748 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 27, 2026) (unpublished), appellant/non-prevailing party filed a motion to tax costs against the prevailing party, with the lower court only taxing $520 out a requested $29,238.98 in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 In Deen v. Kreditor, Case No. G064426 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 25, 2026) (unpublished), a prevailing party on a prior appeal filed a costs memorandum for appellate costs totaling $1,184.65.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 In Beecham v. City of Azusa, Case No. B33843 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished), deceased trustee, through a substituted personal presentative, sued two City entities (City), an irrigation company, and a water committee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)

Costs, Deadlines, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: CHRO Prevailing Party On Modification Request And Appeal Work On Certain Orders Was Entitled To The Lower Court’s Fee Recovery

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

However, Because A Harassment Renewal Order Was Reversed, Fees For Those Efforts Were Not Allowable As Well As Routine Cost Recovery Because No Memorandum Of Costs Was Filed. In litigation which has gone on for a while and generated several appeals, the dust may have finally settled with the appellate court opinion in George v.

Costs, Section 998: Where A Losing Cross-Defendant Was Never Served With A Section 998 Offer, Trial Court Erred In Awarding Expert Witness Expenses Against Her

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

Costs Recovery Was Void Under CCP § 473(d), With A Remand Ordered To See If Other Costs Were Allowable. Warren v. Shahar, Case No. B339274 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 11, 2026) (unpublished) illustrates how a costs memorandum likely needs to be filed separately when there are separate parties involved and CCP § 998 offers

Costs, Section 998: Because Defense 998 Offer Was Valid And It Defensed The Plaintiff, Routine Costs Were Allowable But Had To Be Further Reduced

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

After The Lower Court Erred In Not Taxing Some Routine Costs, Especially Some Conceded By The Defense As Being Erroneous, The Costs Judgment Had To Be Modified On Appeal. Reyes-Gonzalez v. Color Marble, Inc., Case No. B350612 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished) involved a case where plaintiff was “defensed” by the defendant,

Appealability, Costs: Plaintiffs Previously Dismissing A Case Voluntarily Cannot Attempt To Resurrect Arguments Relating To Prior Nonappealable Orders Through A Subsequent Partially Denied Routine Costs Order

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Costs

The Costs Order Under Review Was Not Final. This post likely will be of interest to appellate attorneys on appealability issues, but it may guide trial level litigation counsel on what type of routine costs orders will be considered as appealable. In Viani v. Fair Oaks Estates, Inc., Case No. C102857 (3d Dist. Jan. 28,

Costs, Landlord/Tenant:  Where No Settlement Agreement Was Of Record, And Testimony Was Conflicting On That Issue With Only Conjectural Evidence Offered By Landlords, Lower Court Erred In Denying Routine To Costs To Tenants After Landlords Dismissed The Unlawful Detainer Case Without Prejudice

Cases: Costs, Cases: Landlord/Tenant

Absence Of A Settlement Agreement Was Critical, Not To Mention Facts Indicating That Tenants Forced The Dismissal Because Landlords Knew They Might Lose. In Treybig v. Meza, Case No. 2024-01416924 (Orange County Superior Court, App. Div. Nov. 20, 2025, posted Dec. 12, 2025) (published), tenants contested an unlawful detainer by arguing that landlords unreasonably refused

Scroll to Top