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 In Main Street-Santa Ana, LLC v. Kappauf, Case No. G049092 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 25, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff rejected a valid CCP § 998 so as to be exposed to recovery of expert witness fees and routine costs.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 Feb. 18, 2015) (unpublished) aptly illustrates.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
Petition for Rehearing Was Correct Clarification Vehicle, But Filed Too Late. The Fourth District, Division 3, in an opinion following rehearing, came to the same result in Ducoing Management, Inc. v. Superior Court, Case No. G050457 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 10, 2015) (published), a writ proceeding which involved Presiding Justice O’Leary, Justice
License Agreement Involving the “Four Seasons” Was At Center Of Controversy. This next post is a fun one, involving the “Four Seasons” and “Jersey Boys,” and of course the different band members and an agreement between all of them granting transfer of rights about aspects of their lives with the band, including biographies.
Subsequent Tax Costs Ruling Incidental to Prior Judgment. Plaintiff in Dinaali v. Rohani, Case No. B245126 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 2, 2015) (unpublished) lost an interference/fraud lawsuit against the defense, which obtained a summary judgment on December 4, 2012 with an award of costs to be established through a cost memorandum. Plaintiff
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”
