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 Ramos v. Romero, Case No. E062963 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 30, 2016) (unpublished) hopefully will bring a smile to many California state litigators as far as routine costs which can be recouped when they are not expressly prohibited or not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 v. City of Maywood, Case No. B256417 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 2, 2016) (unpublished) is a situation where City of Maywood prevailed against individual interests in a united front—a police officers association.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
Failure to File Separate Motion for Recovery of Expert Witness Fees Not Damning. In Baez v. Burbank Unified School Dist., Case No. B254852 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 25, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff finally won on FEHA claims after a third trial following a couple of earlier appellate hiccups. Plaintiff won $179,398 in compensatory
Williams Is Found To Be Retroactive To Cases Pending On Appeal. Plaintiff lost FEHA/non-FEHA claims, both found to be interrelated, through a summary judgment motion. After that, the trial judge found the case to be meritless, awarding defendants a modest fee award of $15,000 after considering plaintiff’s ability to pay (with the defense
All of Awarded Costs Were Expressly Authorized. Plaintiff was flummoxed when the trial judge awarded prevailing defendant $28,488.82 in costs for service of out-of-state subpoenas, computerized time/display, and demonstrative graphic renting equipment expenses. Plaintiff’s appeal did not change things in Goldsmith Seeds v. Great American Ins. Co., Case No. H037791 (6th Dist. Jan.
Allocation—Artefex LP v. Bushman, Case No. B260737 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 17, 2015) (Unpublished). In this one, plaintiffs won $15,000 on a contract breach claim after voluntarily dismissing tort claims, with the trial judge then awarding $191,256 in fees and $11,778.37 in costs based on a fees clause. The 2/6 DCA reversed
