Lower Court’s Determination That No Party Prevailed For Routine Cost Purpose Was Reversed With Directions To Award Costs To Dismissed Defendant. In Shapell SoCal Rental Properties, LLC v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., Case No. G063663 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 17, 2025) (unpublished), tenant and landlord were involved in an Orange County unlawful detainer action […]
Case Explores Fee Clause Interpretation, An Award Of Fees To An Unlicensed Associate Supervised By A California Attorney, And An Award Of Expert Witness Costs Which Were Not Pled Or Proven As Damages. The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. 250 Fourth Development LP, Case No. A169470 (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 13, 2025) (unpublished) is
Pollock Analysis Dictated The Overturn. In York v. City of Sacramento, Case No. C097761 (3d Dist. May 14, 2025) (unpublished), the Third District in an earlier opinion affirmed a summary adjudication order against plaintiff in a FEHA case and awarded appellate costs to the prevailing employer. The California Supreme Court granted review and remanded
$124,585.24 Costs Award Vacated As A Matter Of Law On Appeal. In Rose v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Case No. A169640 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 14, 2025) (published), defendant employer prevailed in a PAGA action brought by plaintiff employee, with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) not participating in the litigation
However, Because Statute Allowing CourtCall Costs As Being Mandatory Was Repealed, Matter Had To Be Remanded To Determine If It Was A Correct Discretionary Costs Matter Under The General Routine Costs Statute. Prevailing defendant, winning on a summary judgment motion, was granted certain costs for deposition transcripts and record subpoenas given that co-counsel needed
Sanctions Award Under Family Code Section 271 Was Defective Because Prevailing Party Failed To Give Notice Of Seeking This Relief. In Marriage of Terry, Case No. B334907 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 21, 2025) (unpublished), a prevailing party on appeal was awarded three components by the lower court: (1) routine costs; (2) $23,587.20 in
Appellate Panel Found No Prejudice For Premature Costs Memorandum Filing and Affirms Most Awarded Costs To The Defense. Doe v. Santa Cruz-Monterey-Merced Managed Medical Care, Case No. H051821 (6th Dist. Apr. 17, 2025) (unpublished) is a situation where a defendant obtained summary judgment against plaintiff on a Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ. Code,
Other Items Also Had To Be Revisited. In the FEHA area, if appropriately raised, lower courts must take into account plaintiff’s financial situation in making a costs award against a non-prevailing FEHA plaintiff even where plaintiff’s case was deemed frivolous. The lower court did award costs against the plaintiff, finding indigency was irrelevant in
No Indication Case Was Frivolous. We have posted on an emerging trend in FEHA cases, which is that routine costs cannot be assessed against a non-prevailing plaintiff unless the case is deemed frivolous. Vanrooy v. Jacobes-Downing-Hughes, Inc., Case No. C100312 (3d Dist. Apr. 7, 2025) (unpublished) is a continuation of that theme. There, plaintiff’s claims
Certain Costs Not Awardable, With Lower Court’s Fee Reduction For Incivility And Abusive Litigation Found To Be No Abuse Of Discretion. In Madison v. Theodore, Case Nos. B310551 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 8, 2025) (unpublished), appellant lost a fiduciary duty-based case against plaintiffs to the tune of $3.9 million based on
