Respondents Did A Smart Thing On Appeal. Respondents in McClain v. Pacific Maritime Assn., Case No. B262952 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 27, 2016) (unpublished) did a smart thing after winning a disability discrimination case and after being awarded routine costs against the losing FEHA plaintiff. Given that FEHA costs are not awardable
However, RFA Costs Of Proof Sanctions For Plaintiff Were Reversed. In Watkins v. Central Freight Lines, Inc., Case No. A145579 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 26, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff won a $3,217.50 judgment against defendant based on a meal break claim, but lost nine other unrelated claims based primarily on discrimination. The lower
Messenger And Rush Charges Also Are Compensable. For prevailing parties, routine costs awardable are codified in Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032 – 1033.5. Except for costs expressly not allowed under section 1033.5(b), the lower court has discretion to allow other costs – even if not expressly allowable under section 1033.5(a) – if
Remanded On Costs-Of-Proof Award; Expert Witness Fee Award Affirmed Based On Inadequate Appellate Record. In Roldan v. Flores, Case No. B260336 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 5, 2016) (unpublished), a lower court awarded costs-of-proof sanctions in the amount of $48,000 for defendant’s failure to admit certain RFAs in a plaintiff motorized bicyclist-defendant car
Parties Can Indeed Negotiate Other Costs Besides Routine Costs As Being Recoverable In Their Contractual Agreements. Porto Ramos-Pinto poster. René Vincent. ca 1925. In Bel Vino, LLC v. Stuart, Case No. D069902 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 26, 2016) (unpublished), sellers of a winery (Stuart Cellars) in Temecula prevailed in a misrepresentation/contract
2/8 DCA Adopts Reasoning of 2/7 DCA In Roman Decision On Costs Apportionment. Metoyer v. L.A. Unified School Dist., Case No. B259458 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 22, 2016) (unpublished) is a situation where plaintiff brought both FEHA and non-FEHA claims, but was defensed after a jury verdict finding lack of causation—namely, that
Disagreed With Hayward To The Extent Prevailing Real Parties Could Not Obtain Reimbursement Of A/R Preparation Expenses As Routine Costs In Mandate Dispute. CEQA petitioners lost the merits of a CEQA petition brought against the City of Ceres and real parties Wal-Mart (two Wal-Mart affiliates). City had incurred costs of $48,889.77 to prepare
Probate—Corman v. Corman, Case No. B251513 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 29, 2016) (Unpublished)—Partial Beneficiary Success Did Not Justify Fee Award. In this first one, there was a nasty probate fight (I guess one could conjecture whether any are other than nasty) over trust accountings, which pitted the trustees against beneficiaries in most
Compensatory/Punitive Award To Winning Plaintiffs Was Only $88,270. This next case illustrates how Code of Civil Procedure section 998 can be a true costs-shifting statute of importance, given that the expert witness fees and other routine costs outstripped the compensatory and punitive damages award to the winning plaintiffs. In Arnold v. Padrah,
However, $212,076.50 In Defense Fees Under Civil Code Section 1717 Are Sustained. In Steiner v. Thexton, Case No. C075266 (3d Dist. Aug. 18, 2016) (unpublished), the defense won a case and was awarded $212,076.50 out of a requested $214,576.50 in attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717—with the loser not contesting fee entitlement
