Trial Judge Did Not Abuse Discretion In Not Awarding Litigation Costs Where Ultimate Win Was Minor In Nature In Unlimited Civil Case. All litigation practitioners should be attuned to the next case, Van Taylor v. Ivie, Case No. B281545 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 26, 2021) (unpublished), where litigation costs are claimed in an
Plaintiff Adequately Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation, Submitted Evidence Demonstrating A Triable Issue Of Fact, And Defendants Did Not Establish That Plaintiff Could Not Prove The Elements Of Negligent Misrepresentation. For a nice discussion re the elements of intentional and negligent misrepresentation, we commend our readers read Borman v. Brown, Case Nos. D076239/D076748 (4th Dist.,
Reason For The Dismissal Was Plaintiffs’ Failure To Adequate Raise Or Brief The Issue. In New Livable California v. Assn of Bay Area Governments, Case No. A159235 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 18, 2020 December 18, 2020, published on Jan. 6, 2021), plaintiffs lost a Brown Act writ of mandate petition on a demurrer,
Bottom Line In This Case, Limited Success Will Impact Cost and Fee Recovery, Even In Public Interest Cases. We have seen that costs and attorney’s fees in many public interest cases, including those under the private attorney general statute, can be quite large. However, one should keep in mind that the cost and fee
Costs Incurred By Plaintiffs In Relation To Other Defendants Were Directly Relevant To Case Against Appealing Defendant And Reasonably Necessary To The Litigation. In Booker v. Imerys Talc America, Case No. A153995 (1st Dist., Div. 3 December 11, 2020) (unpublished), wife and heirs of decedent continued mesothelioma-related litigation against seven defendants after his death.
Plaintiffs Achieved Partial Success In Their Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To Compel Arbitration, And Fees/Costs Are Not Awardable To Prevailing FEHA Defendant, Pursuant To Gov. Code § 12965(b), Unless The Court Finds Action Was Frivolous, Unreasonable, Or Groundless When Brought, Or The Plaintiff Continued To Litigate After It Became Clearly So. In Humphrey v.
If Reasonable And Necessary, CCP § 1094.6(c) Allows For Recovery Of These Costs. In McMillan v. County of Siskiyou, Case No. C087960 (3d Dist. Dec. 9, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiffs wanted a hearing before the County’s Planning Commission to determine whether they had vested rights to a surface mine on a 1,741-acre property. They got
Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP Motion Was Not Based On Protected Activities And Determined Frivolous, And Order On Costs Was Not Appealable Under The One Final Judgment Rule. In Lang v. Petaluma Hills Farm, Case No. A156614 (5th Dist., Div. 5 November 20, 2020) (unpublished), several neighbors sued other neighbors – claiming defendant neighbors were conducting
Interpretation Of The Scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1920 Was At Issue. 28 U.S.C. § 1920 provides: “A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following: (1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in
Losing Plaintiff Could Not Overcome Abuse Of Discretion Standard. Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032, 1033, and 1033.5 are the main statutory provisions which govern the award of “routine” costs to a prevailing party in California state court litigation. This is the way it works for the prevailing party: there are specific categories of
