However, Lower Court’s Across-the-Board Reduction Based On Number Of Jointly Represented Parties Had To Be Remanded To Determine Costs Justly Due To Prevailing Party For Routine Costs Purposes. Charton v. Harkey, Case No. G050514 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 24, 2016) (published), a 3-0 decision authored by Justice Aronson, arose from the fallout […]
Deposition Costs Were Reasonable Under The Circumstances. In Estate of Gasper, Case No. A142068 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 28, 2016) (unpublished), an attorney handling the closing of a probate estate sued the title company for improperly closing escrow on a piece of real estate and causing him to incur fees/expenses in cleaning
Matter Remanded To Reconsider Routine Costs Awardable To Plaintiff. Sanford v. Rasnick, Case No. A145704 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 25, 2016) (published) involved a situation where plaintiff motorcyclist sued defendants owner/driver of a car. Defendants made a joint, unapportioned pretrial CCP § 998 offer of $130,000, but plaintiff recovered less after various
Plaintiff Did Not Shift Burden Of Correctness Accorded To Verified Costs Memorandum. Plaintiff, in a lobby slip and fall, failed to beat a CCP § 998 offer from defendant owner/manager of the building lobby. The lower court awarded certain routine costs to the defense, prompting an appeal in Alexander v. Wealth Properties, Case
Read On … For the List! Ramos v. Romero, Case No. E062963 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 30, 2016) (unpublished) hopefully will bring a smile to many California state litigators as far as routine costs which can be recouped when they are not expressly prohibited or not expressly listed, invoking trial court discretion to
ESI Costs Claimed Were Not Narrowly Targeted To Those Allowable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) allows district judges to tax certain enumerated litigation expenses as “costs,” including “the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” (Keep in mind
. . . And Other Issues. With respect to routine costs recoverable by a prevailing party in California state courts, the issue is governed pretty much by statute. The general methodology is that routine costs are a matter of right if expressly allowed by statute, cannot be recovered if expressly excluded under Code
Defendant Did Not Prevail, For Routine Costs Purposes, By Obtaining Dismissal In This Situation. The California Supreme Court, in DeSaulles v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, Case No. S219236 (Cal. Supreme Court Mar. 10, 2016) (published), decided that a voluntarily dismissing plaintiff who received settlement money from the defendant was a prevailing
Striking Of Entire Costs Memo Reversed; However, Appellate Court Intimated That Not All Of The Claimed Costs May Be Reasonable In Nature. California’s routine costs statutes are an interesting lot; they are in some instances mandatory and then discretionary power is vested in lower courts even if mandatory provisions do not
All Of The Losing Parties Unified In Interest. Maywood Police Officers Assn. v. City of Maywood, Case No. B256417 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 2, 2016) (unpublished) is a situation where City of Maywood prevailed against individual interests in a united front—a police officers association. After City prevailed in an action, a trial
