No Per Page Charge Is A Mandatory Requirement. In Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. City of Oxnard, Case No. B338323 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 14, 2026) (unpublished), City was awarded $26,489.42 in costs under CCP § 1094.5(a) for lawyer and paralegal time in preparing an administrative record even though the costs memorandum was filed
. . . But Fees Had To Be Allocated To Only Successful Claims Because Opponent Prevailed On Some Issues. The Colony at Cal. Oaks HOA v. Majestic Asset Mgt., LLC, Case No. D083140 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 18, 2026) (unpublished) was an HOA versus certain member dispute involving a golf course. The case, on
Plaintiff’s Failure To Include The Costs Memorandum Was Fatal. Citizens Against Marketplace Apt./Condominium Development v. City of San Ramon, Case Nos. A170988 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 24, 2026) (partially published; costs discussion not published) dealt with a $38,568.63 costs award to City for administrative record preparation in a case where it prevailed
Also, Appellant’s Apportionment Argument Based On Relative Successes Had No Factual Analysis, So It Was Rejected. In Mileck v. Mileck, Case No. A170748 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 27, 2026) (unpublished), appellant/non-prevailing party filed a motion to tax costs against the prevailing party, with the lower court only taxing $520 out a requested $29,238.98 in
The Motion To Tax Costs Did Shift The Burden Back To The Costs Claimant—Not Met. In Deen v. Kreditor, Case No. G064426 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 25, 2026) (unpublished), a prevailing party on a prior appeal filed a costs memorandum for appellate costs totaling $1,184.65. The losing side filed a motion to tax appellate
Acting Presiding Justice Segal Penned The 3-0 Opinion On Various Merits, Costs, And Fee Issues In A 74-Page Opinion. In Beecham v. City of Azusa, Case No. B33843 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished), deceased trustee, through a substituted personal presentative, sued two City entities (City), an irrigation company, and a water committee
Fees Were Not Allowable Without A Fees Motion; Costs Were Not Allowable Because Failure To Use Judicial Council Worksheet Gave No Basis For A Conclusion On Whether The Costs Were Reasonable, In Response To Defendant’s Motion To Tax Costs. Pelloni v. Mirshahi, Case Nos. B336950 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 17, 2026) (unpublished)
However, Because A Harassment Renewal Order Was Reversed, Fees For Those Efforts Were Not Allowable As Well As Routine Cost Recovery Because No Memorandum Of Costs Was Filed. In litigation which has gone on for a while and generated several appeals, the dust may have finally settled with the appellate court opinion in George v.
Costs Recovery Was Void Under CCP § 473(d), With A Remand Ordered To See If Other Costs Were Allowable. Warren v. Shahar, Case No. B339274 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 11, 2026) (unpublished) illustrates how a costs memorandum likely needs to be filed separately when there are separate parties involved and CCP § 998 offers
After The Lower Court Erred In Not Taxing Some Routine Costs, Especially Some Conceded By The Defense As Being Erroneous, The Costs Judgment Had To Be Modified On Appeal. Reyes-Gonzalez v. Color Marble, Inc., Case No. B350612 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished) involved a case where plaintiff was “defensed” by the defendant,
