Procedural Requirements Did Guide This Result. In Fichter v. Byrd, Case No. B270418 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 27, 2018) (unpublished), the appellate court, as a matter of law, decided to strike a $729.11 costs award to prevailing plaintiffs through a clerk’s entry on plaintiffs’ judgment. The reason? Costs were awarded before the time […]
Second Circuit Court Of Appeals Decides Issue In Civil Rights Context. In Hines v. City of Albany, 862 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2017), the Second Circuit decided that appellate attorney’s fees for a successful civil rights plaintiff were not recoverable under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 as costs, even where an underlying fee-shifting
No Exceptions Applied, Including DeSaulles Exception. Although occurring in a somewhat convoluted procedural context, Brewer v. Balda Investments USA, Case No. G054349 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 30, 2018) (unpublished) reminds us that routine costs awards are governed by structural statutes which may be automatic when dismissals are involved, with the exceptions being few
Financial Disparity Is One Of The Big Factors Weighed. So you represented defendants which/who successfully obtained summary judgment in a plaintiffs’ wage/hour class action case. You move for recovery of routine costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Question is: Will you get them? Maybe not. The reason
Motion For Appellate Fees And Costs Was Timely Filed After Skipping Labor Day Holiday. In a case which has spawned third and fourth appeals, the Second District, Division 7 likely reached the end of a litigation saga in Kenne v. Stennis, Case Nos. B259635/B262175 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 27, 2017) (unpublished). The
$68,382.38 In Costs Not Allowed To Defense Is The Upshot. In Smith v. Sharp Healthcare, Case No. D069206 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 22, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a case with both FEHA and non-FEHA claims, with the defense filing a costs memorandum seeking $68,382.38 after plaintiff rejected a CCP § 998 offer of
Denial Of Costs Is Not A Sanction Prescribed For Failing To Meet And Confer. By now, most California litigators are well aware of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, which requires that a demurring party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with a party whose pleading is the subject of a
Moonlight Fire. 2007. Wikipedia. Author: kkmontandon. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell, Case Nos. C074879/C076008 (3d Dist. Dec. 8, 2017) (fully published; first posted on Dec. 6, 2017 with costs/fee discussions not published) is a case arising from the 2007
Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell, Case Nos. C074879/C076008 (3d Dist. Dec. 8, 2017) (fully published; first posted on Dec. 6, 2017 with costs/fee discussions not published) is a case arising from the 2007 Moonlight Fires which burned 65,000 acres in Plumas County. Plaintiffs, mainly governmental agencies or affiliates, sought to recover
The High Cost Of Unsuccessfully Seeking Justice: Appellate Court Chopped Some Expert Witness Fees; Plaintiffs’ Attorneys May Be On The Hook For The Costs. Perez v. Dole Food Company, Inc., Case No. B277659 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 14, 2017) (unpublished) is an interesting fall-out from a wrongful death action which was dismissed with
