“Merits” Dismissals Are Not Only Dismissals Giving Rise To Costs. In Hambrick v. Healthcare Partner Medical Group, Inc., Case No. B251643 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 1, 2015) (unpublished), defendants prevailed based on a judicial abstention argument on a gnarly risk level regulatory issue for health providers in a class action case, obtaining […]
However, Striking Plaintiff’s Costs Had To Be Reconsidered Under Williams. Actually, Myres v. San Francisco Housing Authority, Case No. A141107 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 20, 2015) (unpublished) may be more interesting for its decision on the costs issue versus the fee issue. On the fee issue, plaintiff did obtain about a
California Supreme Court Treats Attorney’s Fees And Costs Alike With Regard To Losing FEHA Plaintiffs. Our California Supreme Court, in Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., Case No. S213100 (Cal. Supreme Ct. May 4, 2015) (published), has decided that losing plaintiffs in FEHA cases should be treated alike with respect to a
End Result Was Denial of Most Fee Recovery To Judgment Creditor, Although Routine Costs Were Allowed To The Creditor. In the companion cases of Devereaux v. Clontz, Case Nos. H037998 and H039324 (6th Dist. Apr. 30, 2015) (unpublished), judgment creditor sought attorney’s fees and costs in connection with post-judgment collection efforts against judgment
Current Section 218.5, Requiring Bad Faith By Employee, Not Retroactive Before January 1, 2014. In Quiles v. Koji’s Japan Inc., Case No. G049238 (4th Dist., Div. 3 April 3, 2015) (unpublished), employee in an employment case, involving multiple claims including meal breaks, added LLC defendant on an alter ego theory. Eventually, LLC defendant
Might Be “Outrageous,” But Total Denial Not Right. In Main Street-Santa Ana, LLC v. Kappauf, Case No. G049092 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 25, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff rejected a valid CCP § 998 so as to be exposed to recovery of expert witness fees and routine costs. The trial judge denied $227,722.09 in
Court of Appeal Did Affirm 998 Cost-Shifting As To Rejected 998 Offer. In Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corp., Case No. D064587 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 10, 2015) (partially published; prejudgment interest on costs discussion published/998 costs discussion not published), plaintiff won a substantial $1.271 damages award resulting from a rear end
Must Reading for Recovery of Electronic Discovery and Demonstrative/Visual Aid Expenses. The Ninth Circuit in In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., No. 12-16183 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2015) (published)—a companion case to the fee award decision recently posted on—provided a “must read” discussion for clients/practitioners attempting to recovery certain electronic discovery and demonstrative/visual
Unexplained Denial Was Erroneous. In Harrington v. EquiTrust Life Ins. Co., Case No. 12-17267 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2015) (published), defendant prevailed on RICO claims through a summary judgment motion, but the district judge denied costs—providing no explanation for the denial. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment grant, but reversed the costs
Costs and sanctions are generally discretionary matters, even if the record might show a different conclusion could have been reached. Appellate courts are loathe to disturb a trial court’s conclusion in such matters, as Sdun v. Patterson, Case No. C070623 (3d Dist. Feb. 18, 2015) (unpublished) aptly illustrates. There, plaintiffs won a
