Premature Filing Of Costs Memorandum Was No Problem Given A Lack Of Prejudice. In Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist., Case Nos. B300072/B302209 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 22, 2020) (published), defendant was allowed a routine costs award of $9,816.78 for service of 22 medical subpoenas in a case where the defendant alleged […]
Plaintiff Did Not Meet His Burden In Showing The Expenses Were Unnecessary/Unreasonable. In Anton v. Barbich Hooper King Dill Hoffman Accountancy Corp., Case Nos. F073713/F074644 (5th Dist. Oct. 20, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a malpractice case brought against accountant defendants (mainly for accounting expert testimony in a litigation involving division of fees/costs) on summary
Vague Objections Not Entertained, But Failure To Award Positive Multiplier Was Sustained. In Koerber v. Project Veritas, Case No. B291770 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 29, 2020) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal affirmed a mandatory SLAPP award of $63,970 in fees and $1,680.13 in costs. The defense requested $109,545 in fees, inclusive of a
Although FEHA Case Was Not Frivolous, Costs Allowable On Non-FEHA Claims. Even though a losing FEHA plaintiff only gets tagged with routine costs if plaintiff’s case is frivolous, that does not mean that plaintiffs in all actions do not face exposure, which is the situation when non-FEHA claims are involved. Obi v. L.A.
Insurance Policy Did Not Preclude Recovery Of Costs Under Sections 998 Or 1293.2 And Strictly Limited Arbitrator’s Authority To Decide Only Plaintiff’s Entitlement To Damages And The Amount Thereof. In Storm v. The Standard Fire Ins. Co., Case No. B299277 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 24, 2020) (published), plaintiff and defendant insurance company
Prevailing Attorney Fell Within Mandatory Category Of A Routine Costs Grant. This next matter involved a contentious domestic, non-divorce temporary restraining order situation where an attorney sued for recovery of unpaid fees by one side (a male in a relationship with an ex-girlfriend) where there were malpractice allegations that the attorney had an affair
However, Appellate Court Strongly Suggested That Attorney’s Fees Were Not Automatic, Given The Lower Court Can Find No One Prevailed—Fee Standard Is Different. In The Real Estate Store v. Michel, Case No. B301771 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 8, 2020) (unpublished), defendant obtained a reversal of a “each side bears its own costs and
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
