However, Because Statute Allowing CourtCall Costs As Being Mandatory Was Repealed, Matter Had To Be Remanded To Determine If It Was A Correct Discretionary Costs Matter Under The General Routine Costs Statute.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 In Marriage of Terry, Case No. B334907 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 21, 2025) (unpublished), a prevailing party on appeal was awarded three components by the lower court: (1) routine costs; (2) $23,587.20 in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 Apr. 17, 2025) (unpublished) is a situation where a defendant obtained summary judgment against plaintiff on a Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ.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 Apr. 7, 2025) (unpublished) is a continuation of that theme.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 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 8, 2025) (unpublished), appellant lost a fiduciary duty-based case against plaintiffs to the tune of $3.9 million based on
Employer Had To Bear Appeal Costs Rather Than Obtaining An Award Of Them. In Nelson v. Golden Queen Mining Co., Case No. F086907 (5th Dist. Jan. 7, 2025) (unpublished), employer won a reversal and remand of a decision denying a motion to compel an arbitration as against an employee. However, the Court of Appeal
Most Were Discretionary By The Lower Court, Except For Investigative Fees Which Are Not Allowed. In Slutske v. Gratton, Case No. B325068 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 31, 2024) (unpublished), the appellate court largely affirmed a lower court’s determination that the following costs were allowable in its discretion based on CCP § 998 or
Yes, Attorney, Paralegal, And Engineering Time Can Be Available As Allowable Costs And Fees To A Prevailing City In A CEQA Case. Public Resources Code section 21167.6(b)(1) authorizes an award of allowable fees or costs in a CEQA case to a prevailing party, which may include reasonable attorney, paralegal, and engineering fees in completing
Lack Of Adequate Record Doomed Both Appeals, But They Also Failed On The Merits. In Paige v. Nolan, Case No. B322162 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 13, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff refused a CCP § 998 offer in a legal malpractice case, with defendant attorney winning. The lower court did award attorney some expert witness
