Cases: Costs

Costs, Prevailing Party, Section 998, Section 1717:  Attorney’s Fees Properly Denied To Plaintiffs Where Neither Side Prevailed Even Though Both Sides Did Bring “On The Contract” Claims

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

However, Denial Of Costs Awards Were Reversed Based On Improper CCP § 998 Focus; Defendants Being The Costs Prevailing Parties When No One Won; And Errors In Adopting Across-The-Board Reductions For Jointly Represented Parties. Golunova v. Akhromtsev, Case Nos. A167542 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 20, 2025) (unpublished) involved dueling complaints by members […]

Costs, Mediation, Prevailing Party:  Sixth District Reverses And Remands Fee Denial For Further Proceedings Based On Erroneous “Refusal To Mediate” Decision Below

Cases: Costs, Cases: Mediation, Cases: Prevailing Party

It Found That A Putative Prevailing Party’s Reversal Of An Initial Decision to Refuse Mediation Might Entitle That Party To Fee Recovery If The Reversal Was Unequivocal In Nature; However, Costs Were Properly Denied Based On Not Filing A Timely Costs Memorandum. Evleshin v. Meyer, Case No. H051869 (6th Dist. Nov. 6, 2025) (published) involved

Allocation, Costs, Employment: Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Denying Costs To The Winning Defendant On Non-FEHA Claim

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

Defense Should Have Apportioned In Its Moving Papers Or Asked For Supplemental Briefing Opportunity.             In Janisse v. MLK-L.A. Healthcare Corp., Case No. B326593 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 3, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff brought FEHA/whistleblower, and non-FEHA claims against defendant. Plaintiff lost all of her claims after a jury trial. The defense

Costs, Private Attorney General: $7,670.55 Costs Award And $613,893.75 Private Attorney General Fee Award To Prevailing Petitioner Affirmed On Appeal

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

On Appeal, Appellant Failed To Take Trial Court’s Findings Into Account, And Failed To Show Abuse Of Discretion.                Prevailing petitioner, a local citizens group, successfully obtained a preliminary injunction to vindicate CEQA concerns in Save Petaluma v. City of Petaluma, Case No. A169925 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 5, 2025) (unpublished).  It successfully fought

Costs, POOF!, Section 1717: Law Firm’s Attorney’s Fees Award Against Plaintiff Reversed As A Matter Of Law Based On Trope Prohibition

Cases: Costs, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

Costs Against Plaintiff Also Narrowed To Law Firm’s Work On An IIED Claim.                What happened in Martin v. Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Case Nos. H050803 et al. (6th Dist. July 25, 2025) (unpublished) is that plaintiff brought a legal malpractice suit against two individual attorneys and their law firm, although plaintiff was non-suited

Costs, Fee Clause Interpretation: Where Parties In A Residential Landlord-Tenant Dispute Stipulated To No Recovery Of Fees Or Costs Beyond $1,000, That Cap Was Enforceable

Cases: Costs, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

$14,000 In Routine Costs Reversed Because It Exceeded The $1,000 Cap.                Freedom of contract was the theme resonating in the result in Gogal v. Deng, Case No. D084158 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 22, 2025) (published).  The case was a residential landlord-tenant dispute where tenants were prevailing parties but had a contractual lease clause

Costs, Employment, POOF!, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Proving Whistleblower Case, But Obtaining No Relief As Employer Proved A “Same-Decision Defense,” Was Erroneously Awarded Attorney’s Fees Under One-Way Whistleblower Statute, Labor Code 1102.5

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

$400,000 Fee Award Reversed As A Matter Of Law, With County Entitled To Routine Costs As The Prevailing Party Below.                In a “mixed-motive” whistleblower case, plaintiff proved the elements of his whistleblower claim, but he obtained no relief because defendant employer proved the “same-decision defense.”  The lower court in Lampkin v. County of Los

Costs: Dismissal Of Unlawful Detainer Defendant Gave Entitlement To Recovery Of Mandatory Routine Costs

Cases: Costs

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

Construction, Costs, Ethics, Indemnity, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: $4.176M Contractual Fee Award To General Contractor And Against Owner Affirmed On Appeal, But Expert Witness Costs Award To General Contractor Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Construction, Cases: Costs, Cases: Ethics, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717

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

Scroll to Top