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 In The Real Estate Store v. Michel, Case No. B301771 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 8, 2020) (unpublished), defendant obtained a reversal of a “each side bears its own costs and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 G056789/G057216 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 25, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a consumer remedies/lemon law case after rejecting two CCP § 998 offers.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 In Abarca v. Citizens of Humanity, LLC, Case No. B290090 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 18, 2020) (unpublished), a FEHA plaintiff won a jury verdict on disability discrimination/retaliation claims, although losing two other claims, to the tune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
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
