Owner Was Not Prevailing Party in Lemon Law Case Because Owner Did Not Recoup Main Objective in the Form of Civil Penalty. On January 3, 2015, we posted on MacQuiddy v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. B251752 (2d Dist., Div. 8), which held among other things that a car owner in a lemon […]
180-Day Rule, Not 15-Day Rule, Applied. Notice of entry of judgment is a key concept for determining whether certain subsequent filings are timely in nature. Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 provides that notice of entry of judgment mailed by the clerk must “affirmatively state it is given upon order by the court”
Car Manufacturer Defendant Prevailed For Fees, But Might Be Liable For Some Routine Costs. Actually, we can say that counsel for Mercedes-Benz in this case made some good moves as far as mitigating fee/costs exposure. M-B was embroiled in a gripe from a car owner about excessive multiple repairs. Car owner sued, but
Aggrieved Party Timely Objected To Proposed Judgment, So Timely Challenge Made To Duplicative Costs Award. In Ecolite Concrete U.S.A., Inc. v. G.S. Levine Ins. Services, Inc., Case Nos. D064178 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 31, 2014) (unpublished), a cross-complainant was hit with a costs judgment in favor of party #1 even
Order Taxing Costs By Over Half Was No Abuse of Discretion, Either. In Berro v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B223515 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 22, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff—an ex-Los Angeles fire department captain—lost a FEHA case (mainly through a summary judgment motion), but the lower court refused to award Fire
Plaintiff Did Prevail And Amounts of Awards No Abuse of Discretion. In Oiye v. Fox, Case No. H038410 (6th Dist. Nov. 25, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff won about a $500,000 verdict against a defendant who was alleged to molest her, with defendant pleading no contest to two lewd counts (being sentenced to 6 years
Sears v. Baccaglio Decision Found Not Viable CCP § 1032 “Prevailing Party” Law. This one is an interesting one under section 1717/CCP § 1032 routine costs jurisprudence. Here, client at first suffered a default judgment of $86,676.88 in favor of former attorney, but client obtained relief from the default judgment from the
Corporations Code Section 200 Is Silent On Costs, But CCP §§ 1032/1-33.5 Do Allow For Recovery. In Allal v. Halvas, Case No. B248675 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 7, 2014) (unpublished), defendants majority shareholder and corporation prevailed in a dissolution suit after invoking Corporations Code 200’s appraisal buy-out remedy, with plaintiff only receiving
Videotape Deposition Copies, E-Discovery Expenses, and Interpreter Expenses Discussed. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014, Doc. 3193), ruled on Apple’s request for an award of “routine” costs—although the request was substantial—in the patent infringement litigation against Samsung involving smartphones
. . . Unless Retainer Agreement Requires Otherwise. Hernandez v. Siegel, Case No. A139653 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 30, 2014) (published) decided, unless a client-attorney retainer agreement dictates otherwise, post-judgment interest on a fee award and routine costs generally are interests vested in the attorney, rather than the client. The appellate court
