10% Per Annum Rate Governed Costs Award. In our June 19, 2014 post, we discussed Chodos v. Borman, 227 Cal.App.4th 76 (2014) (Chodos I), where the appellate court refused to sustain a multiplier were the attorney had no retainer agreement with the client such that the lodestar, with two stipulated adjustments, adequately compensated
We Came To The Same Conclusion In A July 6, 2009 Prior Post. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in Gortat v. Capala Brothers, Inc., No. 14-3304-cv (2d Cir. July 29, 2015), decided that prevailing plaintiffs in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case are not entitled to reimbursement of expert witness expenses
First One Is Authorized And Second One Was “Reasonably Necessary.” In Balian v. Reliance Environmental Consulting, Inc., Case No. B255730 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 31, 2015) (unpublished), defendant prevailing party was awarded costs for travel to certain depositions and for Case Home Page expenses (the latter which are electronic document service provider
However, 1/3 DCA Discusses Split In Opinion About Whether Exhibits Unused At Trial Are Compensable Costs, Agreeing They Are If They Could Be Found Reasonably Helpful To The Trier Of Fact. In Dixon Gas Club LLC v. Safeway Inc., Case No. A139910 (1st Dist., Div. 3 July 30, 2015) (unpublished), Safeway moved for
Reasonable Hotel Expenses Might Have Played A Factor. In Pendola Family Trust Partnership v. Pan Pacific (Pine Creek), L.P., Case No. C074300 (3d Dist. July 29, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiffs appealed a denial of a motion to tax costs against prevailing defendants of these items: (1) pro hac vice motion expenses; (2) travel expenses
Trial Court Properly Found They Were “Reasonably Necessary.” In Green v. County of Riverside, Case No. D067424 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 29, 2015) (published), plaintiff lost an unreasonable police force civil rights case. Later, the trial judge awarded defendants $66,453.02 in costs, $40,610.68 of which constituted paralegal fees for helping prepare/present electronic
No Costs Allocation Between Plaintiffs Required, 998 Offer Shifted Expert Witness Fees, And Prosecution Of CLRA Claim At Trial Was Not In Good Faith. Foss v. San Antonio Community Hospital, Case No. E057236 (4th Dist., Div. 2 July 28, 2015) (unpublished) was a case prosecuted by plaintiffs against medically affiliated defendants under various
Equitable Considerations Do Not Override “Matter Of Right” CCP § 1032(b) Mandate. In Cheung v. Cheung-Wick, Case No. B254254 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 28, 2015) (unpublished), brother-in-law did prevail on a cross-complaint in a probate dispute after the trial judge decided the other side did not carry their burden of proof as
They Did Get $76,000 In Fees And $16,961 In Costs, But Not Anything More—Plaintiffs’ Behavior In Settlement Negotiations Found To Be Irrelevant For Fixing 1717 Fees. Some of the gnarly cases involve those where there is no “unqualified winner” under Civil Code section 1717 as far as fees (although a winner for routine
POOF!: Award of Fees/Costs To Plaintiff Reversed, With Remand To Award Fees/Costs To Prevailing Trustee. Torigian v. WT Capital Lender Services, Case No. F068393 (5th Dist. June 24, 2015) (unpublished) is an interesting unpublished decision, authored by Acting Presiding Justice Cornell, where a neutral trustee under a deed of trust was found to
