Cases: Costs

Civil Rights, Costs: Lower Court’s Award Of Costs Against Dismissing FEHA Plaintiff Reversed As A Matter Of Law.

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

No Indication Case Was Frivolous.                We have posted on an emerging trend in FEHA cases, which is that routine costs cannot be assessed against a non-prevailing plaintiff unless the case is deemed frivolous. Vanrooy v. Jacobes-Downing-Hughes, Inc., Case No. C100312 (3d Dist. Apr. 7, 2025) (unpublished) is a continuation of that theme.  There, plaintiff’s claims […]

Costs, Prevailing Party, Reasonableness Of Fees: Most Of Costs Award Is Affirmed, As Well As Substantial $1,751,500 Fee Award Is Sustained On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Certain Costs Not Awardable, With Lower Court’s Fee Reduction For Incivility And Abusive Litigation Found To Be No Abuse Of Discretion.                In Madison v. Theodore, Case Nos. B310551 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 8, 2025) (unpublished), appellant lost a fiduciary duty-based case against plaintiffs to the tune of $3.9 million based on

Costs: Although Employer Prevailed On Appeal, DCA Decides It Should Not Be Granted Costs On Appeal Based On Omissions And Legal Misstatements In Appellate Proceedings

Cases: Costs

Employer Had To Bear Appeal Costs Rather Than Obtaining An Award Of Them.                In Nelson v. Golden Queen Mining Co., Case No. F086907 (5th Dist. Jan. 7, 2025) (unpublished), employer won a reversal and remand of a decision denying a motion to compel an arbitration as against an employee.  However, the Court of Appeal

Costs: Expert Witness Fees, Unsuccessful/Withdrawn Motions, Unused Witnesses/Experts/Exhibits, Subpoened Documents Not Used At Trial, And Investigative Expenses Considered On Appeal

Cases: Costs

Most Were Discretionary By The Lower Court, Except For Investigative Fees Which Are Not Allowed.                In Slutske v. Gratton, Case No. B325068 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 31, 2024) (unpublished), the appellate court largely affirmed a lower court’s determination that the following costs were allowable in its discretion based on CCP § 998 or

Costs, Special Fee Shifting Statute: More Than $73,000 In City Attorney Time Needed To Complete CEQA Administrative Record Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Yes, Attorney, Paralegal, And Engineering Time Can Be Available As Allowable Costs And Fees To A Prevailing City In A CEQA Case.                Public Resources Code section 21167.6(b)(1) authorizes an award of allowable fees or costs in a CEQA case to a prevailing party, which may include reasonable attorney, paralegal, and engineering fees in completing

Appealability, Costs, Fee Clause Interpretation: Lower Court’s Grant Of Expert Fee Costs To Defendant And Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Defendant Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Costs, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Lack Of Adequate Record Doomed Both Appeals, But They Also Failed On The Merits.                In Paige v. Nolan, Case No. B322162 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 13, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff refused a CCP § 998 offer in a legal malpractice case, with defendant attorney winning.  The lower court did award attorney some expert witness

Costs, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Dismissing Case After Obtaining Nonmonetary Relief Requested During The Litigation May Be The Prevailing Party

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

Lower Court Erred In Not Granting Routine Costs Under Mandatory Prevailing Party Costs Provisions; But, On Remand, It Needed To Determine If Plaintiff Prevailed Under The Discretionary Prevailing Party Costs Provision.                Our title and subtitle above capture what happened in Fillerup v. Franchise Tax Board, Case No. C099158 (3d Dist. Dec. 11, 2024) (unpublished),

Costs: Fifth District Agrees That Unity Of Interest Principle Was Repealed In The Routine Costs Area

Cases: Costs

It Endorsed The Reasoning In The Charton Opinion.                In Mosley v. Pacifica Bakersfield, L.P., Case No. F084699 (5th Dist. Sept. 20, 2024) (unpublished), a co-defendant dismissed right before trial was awarded a little over $28,000 in routine costs against plaintiff, who won sizable damages.  The Fifth District affirmed, deciding that (1) CCP § 1032(a)(4)

Costs: With Respect Trial Transcription Costs, Court Reporter Fee Are Awardable But Transcript Preparation Is Not Unless Transcripts Ordered By The Court

Cases: Costs

Also, Messenger And E-Filing Charges Are Allowable In The Court’s Discretion.                McCluskey v. Hendricks, Case No. B331457 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 16, 2024) (unpublished) reinforced these principles for recovery of routine costs: (1) court reporter fees for trial transcription are recoverable (CCP § 1033.5(a)(11); Gov. Code, § 68086(d)(2)); (2) actual trial transcript preparation

Costs, Deadlines, Probate, Reasonableness Of Fees, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $175,252.50 Fee Award Under Financial Elder Abuse Statute Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Probate, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fee Request Reduced Down From $203,865; Two Awarded Routine Costs Components Remanded For A Further Hearing.                In Thompson v. Ito, Case No. G061437 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 12, 2024) (unpublished), a defendant losing a trust undue influence case and determined to have committed financial elder abuse was hit with an adverse attorney’s fees

Scroll to Top