No “Chill” Seen As Realistic In This Case, With Appellate Court Giving Some Direction on Cost Line Items. Coalition for Adequate Review v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. A135512 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 15, 2014) (published) is must reading for litigants in CEQA record preparation cases, especially when in […]
Opposing Party Did Not Show Cost Item Was Unreasonable or Unnecessary. Litigant losing an action against a school district had its motion to tax costs denied when it challenged the award of costs for service of process via publication. Its challenge on appeal in Los Alamitos Unified School Dist. V. Howard Contracting,
Second District, Division 8 Decides In Unpublished Decision. In Martin v. Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing, Case No. B251186 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 9, 2014) (unpublished), a litigant hit with routine costs argued he was denied due process based on the lower court’s later award of routine costs without argument of
Karnazes v. Hartford, Case No. A139421 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 27, 2014) (unpublished) In a long-standing antagonistic battle between two former law partners, a cross-respondent was awarded costs by the appellate court after a cross-appeal was dismissed. The winner then filed a costs memo for $627.50 in appeals costs, prompting yet another appeal after
1/5 DCA Follows Two Other Appellate Decisions on Business Subpoena Costs. In Naser v. Lakeridge Athletic Club, Case No. A138353 (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 27, 2014) (partially published; costs discussion published), the lower court allowed the defense prevailing on a summary judgment motion certain costs challenged by the losing plaintiff. However, plaintiff did not
Implied Contractual and Equitable Indemnity Theories Cannot Undermine American Rule. Dalton v. Francis, Case No. H033247 (6th Dist. June 26, 2014) (unpublished) involved a buyer lawsuit against seller and dual real estate agents for nondisclosures in connection with a residential sale regarding a dilapidated septic system. The problem was that seller and individual brokers negligently
No Prejudice or Misidentification Found to Opposite Side through Clerical Error. Plaintiff in Pladott v. Garbell, Case No. B247876 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 11, 2014) (unpublished) appealed a denial of a motion to strike a costs memorandum filed against him by the defense. The facts were that the defense timely filed the
Appealing Party Confused Pretrial and Post-trial Prevailing Party Cost Recoupment. Mt. Shasta Tomorrow v. County of Siskiyou, Case No. C072035 (3d Dist. May 14, 2014) (unpublished) is a case where a CEQA petitioner claiming financial hardship had its case dismissed for belatedly moving to waive costs of certifying the administrative record (A/R). The
Marx Confronted Costs Issue, Providing Relief to Prevailing Defendants In District Court’s Discretion. In Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 133 S. Ct. 1166, 1172 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an unsuccessful plaintiff in a Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) case can be liable for defense costs even absent proof that
Decision Confronts Whether Settlement Proceeds Constitute a “Net Monetary Recovery” in an Opinion Likely Be Cited Often in the Costs Area. deSaulles v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, Case No. H038184 (6th Dist. May 2, 2014) (published), we predict, will be an opinion often cited on routine costs issues What happened
