On Appeal, Taxed Deposition Costs Were Additionally Awarded On Defense Cross-Appeal. In Nguyen v. House of Imports, Inc., Case Nos. G056789/G057216 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 25, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a consumer remedies/lemon law case after rejecting two CCP § 998 offers. In the end, he was saddled with some routine costs. Plaintiff […]
Limited Success/Allocation Fee Challenges Rejected On Appeal; Expert Witness Fees Can Be Sought Through A Costs Memorandum. In Abarca v. Citizens of Humanity, LLC, Case No. B290090 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 18, 2020) (unpublished), a FEHA plaintiff won a jury verdict on disability discrimination/retaliation claims, although losing two other claims, to the tune
“Pragmatic Take” On Routine Costs Was Explained On Appeal, With Non-Used Exhibits Costs Allowable Despite Siding On A Split In Intermediate Appellate Thinking—If They Were Helpful. Segal v. ASICS America Corp., Case No. B299184 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 15, 2020) (published) confronted allowing routine costs—although, given modern litigation expenses, maybe far from routine
Defense, Also, Properly Denied Costs Because Plaintiff’s Claims Were Found To Be Nonfrivolous. In Wergechik v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC, Case Nos. G056079/G056318 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 3, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff did prevail on FEHA claims against defendants, but she was only awarded a $750 penalty and $150 in statutory attorney’s fees on
Two Provisions Had To Be Harmonized To Get To The Holding. In National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward, Case No. S252445 (Cal. Supreme Court May 28, 2020) (published), the California Supreme Court decided that City was not allowed to charge a Public Records Act requestor the expenses of redacting statutorily-exempt information because those
Case Involved Applying DeSaulles Under Unusual Circumstances. Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp., Case No. H043530 (6th Dist. Apr. 23, 2020) (published) is must reading for practitioners in trade secret cases when it comes to royalty awards under California’s Uniform Trade Secret Act. It also has an interesting published discussion on who is the
An Invalid Section 998 Offer And A Failure To Reserve The Right To Seek Prevailing Party Fees In Agreements To Split Costs Sealed Plaintiff’s Fate. In Anthony v. Li, Case No. A156640 (1st Dist., Div. 3 April 13, 2020) (published), a prevailing personal injury plaintiff, to whom a jury awarded $650,235.00 in damages
Defendants Will Be Entitled To Substantial Fees/Costs On Remand, Not To Mention An Attempt To Garner Even More Fees. This next case is a very substantial reverse of fortune on appeal. So, that takes us to posting on Abregov v. Lawrence, Case No. G056866 (Abregov II) (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 19, 2020) (unpublished).
Multiple Challenges Rejected By Appellate Court. In Arambula v. Irvine Unified School Dist., Case No. G057396 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 16, 2020) (unpublished), a trial court loser recovering nothing decided they should challenge very routine costs which were awarded by the trial court. Bad move. Appellant challenged deposition costs for the defense
Reason Was That Plaintiff Only Had Limited Success, So No Abuse Of Discretion In The Reduction By The Lower Court. So, a plaintiff prevails on a wage/hour claim for unpaid wages under Labor Code section 218.5, but only gets a minimal award which was limited success when other claims are considered? Does that plaintiff
