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 Dec. 9, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiffs wanted a hearing before the County’s Planning Commission to determine whether they had vested rights to a surface mine on a 1,741-acre property.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 In Lang v. Petaluma Hills Farm, Case No. A156614 (5th Dist., Div. 5 November 20, 2020) (unpublished), several neighbors sued other neighbors – claiming defendant neighbors were conducting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
Plaintiff’s $2 Million Request, Inclusive Of A 2.0 Positive Multiplier, Did Not Gain Traction. Partial success and high hourly rates can often lead to reductions and rejection of a multiplier in contingency-driven cases under FEHA. That is what basically occurred in Do v. Raytheon Co., Case No. B293950 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct 27,
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 Oct. 20, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a malpractice case brought against accountant defendants (mainly for accounting expert testimony in a litigation involving division of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
