Cases: Costs

Costs, Experts, Section 998: Sixth District Affirms Denial Of $26,950.50 In Expert Witness Fees To Prevailing Defendant Because Section 998 Offer Was Not Apportioned Among Plaintiffs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Experts, Cases: Section 998

Defendant’s Treatment Of Mother And Son Plaintiffs As Spouses For Section 998 Purposes Did Not Fly.             In Roe v. Hollister School Dist., Case No. H043658 (6th Dist., Sept. 26, 2019) (unpublished), mother and son plaintiffs (Jane and Jonnie Roe) sued school district and others for an incident involving the five-year-old son and another six-year-old […]

Costs: Awarded Costs Of $199,464.98, Consisting Mostly Of Deposition Costs Incurred In Related Federal Proceeding, Upheld On Appeal Because Coordination Order Was At Play And Apportionment Among Actions Not Necessary

Cases: Costs

The Coordination Order Called For Extensive Discovery Coordination Among The Federal And State Court Actions Such That Costs Incurred For Depositions Noticed In The Federal Proceeding Were Incurred In The California Proceeding. 1921 Model T Ford             In In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II, Case No. A152893 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept.

Costs, Deadlines, Reasonableness Of Fees, SLAPP: 2/3 DCA Affirms SLAPP Fee Award To Defendant Of $53,915.50, The Full Defense Request, Rejecting Untimely Motion Filing Argument

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP

However, Costs Award Reversed Because It Was Untimely Filed And Prejudiced Plaintiff.             In Residual Income Opportunities, Inc. v. Cynergy Data, LLC, Case No. B289219 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 29, 2019) (unpublished), the defense won a SLAPP motion, filing for recovery of costs to the tune of $3,567.77 and moving for attorney’s fees totaling

Costs, Deadlines: Costs Memorandum Filed Outside Of 15-Day Entry Of Judgment Deadline By Clerk Was Properly Stricken By Trial Judge

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines

Claiming Party’s Counsel Continued To Use East L.A. Address For Pleadings, Even Though Moving To Simi Valley, Such That Clerk’s Entry Notice To East L.A. Address Supported Striking Costs Memorandum, Which Was Filed Almost Five Months Later.             I guess we can say that the moral of AV Sikh Center v. Antelope Valley Sikh Center,

Costs, Deadlines: Premature Filing Of Costs Memorandum In 2010 Did Not Mean It Was A Nullity, Such That 2018 Motion To Tax Costs Was Way Too Late

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines

Unpublished Opinion Does A Nice Job Of Discussing Modern View On Premature Costs Memo Filings.             In Paland v. Brooktrails Township Services Dist. Bd. of Directors, Case No. A156229 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 19, 2019) (unpublished), Defendant filed and served a memorandum of costs in February 2010 seeking $1,029.02 in costs incurred on appeal. 

Costs, Requests For Admissions: Jane Doe Plaintiff Losing At Trial Based On A Nonsuit Properly Assessed With $19,500 In Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions And With Routine Costs Of $107,440.35

Cases: Costs, Cases: Requests for Admission

Respondents Conceded $6,988.27 In Claimed Costs Were Not Allowable.             Doe v. Dept. of Children & Family Services, Case No. B276699 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 18, 2019) (published; previously issued as unpublished on June 20, 2019) is a case demonstrating how respondents, on appeal, can gain appellate credibility by conceding a legal issue for

Civil Rights, Costs, Employment, Section 998: Where Thrust Of Losing Plaintiff’s Suit Was A FEHA Claim, Trial Court Properly Refused To Award CCP § 998 Costs To Winning Defendant Despite Loss On Non-FEHA Whistleblower Claim

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

Prominence Of Suit Prevailed, Plus Appellate Court Offers Tips On What Trial Courts Ought To Follow When There Is A Split In Intermediate Appellate Thought On An Issue.             In Thiry v. Pet Partners, Inc., Case No. E070851 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 20, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff brought a mixed FEHA/whistleblower/UCF suit based on allegations

Costs, Employment: Defendant Winning Against Plaintiff’s Employment-Based Claims, Although Losing Cross-Claims, Entitled To Routine Costs, But Not Costs Under Labor Code Section 218.5

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

No Finding That Claims Made Or Prosecuted In Bad Faith Failed To Trigger Section 218.5 Cost-Shifting.             Plaintiff and defendant/cross-complainant lost both of their suits after a bench trial, plaintiff losing wage/hour claims and cross-complainant losing fiduciary duty/joint venture cross-claims.  The lower court determined both sides should bear their own costs, with no determination made

Costs, POOF!, Private Attorney General: Plaintiff’s CCP §1021.5 Fee Award Of $827,035 Went POOF! On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff Did Not Obtain Its Primary Litigation Objective Such That Fee Award Was Abuse Of Discretion; Prevailing Defendant’s Costs Request Was Improperly Stricken Because It Prevailed.            San Diegans For Open Government v. City of San Diego & San Diego Tourism Marketing Dist. Corp., Case No. D072181 (4th Dist., Div. 1 April 4, 2019) (unpublished) shows

Costs, Private Attorney General: Petitioner Winning Some Claims Which Vindicated A Local Ordinance Passed By Public Initiative Vote Was Prevailing Party For Routine Costs And Might Be Prevailing Party For CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Costs, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Successful Party And Significant Benefit Prongs Met, But Remanded To See If Financial Burden Element Met Under Section 1021.5.             The Third District in Friends of Spring Street v. Nevada City, Case No. C086563 (3d Dist. March 28, 2019) (unpublished) had found in an earlier appeal that petitioners had properly challenged real parties’ ability to

Scroll to Top