Cases: Costs

Costs: Majority Shareholder And Defendant Corporation Prevailing In Dissolution Appraisal Proceeding Entitled To Apportioned Costs Of Appraisers/Related Depositions

Cases: Costs

  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      In Allal v. Halvas, Case No. B248675 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 7, 2014) (unpublished), defendants majority shareholder and corporation prevailed in a dissolution suit after invoking Corporations Code 200’s appraisal buy-out remedy, with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 […]

In The News . . . . U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh Provides A Roadmap For Recoverable Costs In Patent Infringement/Complex Federal Cases

Cases: Costs, In The News

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

Civil Rights/Costs/Interest: Attorneys, Not Clients, Are Entitled to Postjudgment Interest On Fee Award And Likely Entitled To Routine Costs Recovery

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Interest

  . . . 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

Costs: Reasonable Labor Costs Of Attorneys And Paralegals To Prepare Administrative Mandamus Can Be Recovered By Record Preparing Governmental Respondent

Cases: Costs

  $37,528.14 Out of Requested $37,528.14 In Costs Was What Petitioner Had To Bear After Voluntarily Dismissing Mandamus Petition.      The Fourth District, Division 1, in Otay Ranch, L.P. v. County of San Diego, Case No. D064809 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 29, 2014) (partially published) determined that the reasonable labor costs of attorneys and

Costs: In Protracted Litigation, Dismissal Basically Rendered Nugatory An Assignment Of A Costs Judgment And Mandatory E-Filing Expenses Are Recoverable

Cases: Costs

  E-Filing Expense Part of Decision Very Instructive.      Ya know, some cases are so fact and procedurally specific that we have to pull back from giving all the specifics. Sheldon v. Strong, Case No. G048770 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 22, 2014) (unpublished) is just such a situation, but there are two good takeaways

Costs/Judgment Enforcement: Appellate Court Reversal In All Other Respects Except For Affirmance On One Nonsuit Ruling As To One Plaintiff Also Meant Pro-Defense Costs Ruling In First Trial Was Reversed As To Other Nonsuited Plaintiff

Cases: Costs, Cases: Judgment Enforcement

  Given Plaintiffs Were Unified in Interest, Reversal and Potential Exposure From First Plaintiff Required Reversal of Costs Ruling Too.      Our local appellate court, in a “by the Court” writ decision involving Justices O’Leary (presiding), Fybel, and Thompson, decided that appellate directives usually “mean what they say.” In this case, a lower court erred

Costs: Los Alamitos Unified School Dist. Opinion Now Published

Cases: Costs

  Service Publication Expenses Recoverable by Prevailing School District.      On September 11, 2014, we posted on Los Alamitos Unified School Dist. v. Howard Contracting, Inc., a Fourth District, Division 3 unpublished decision at the time. As far as what we blog about, it validated that a prevailing school district can obtain reimbursement of service

Costs/POOF!/Family Law: Trifecta Of Appellate Decisions For 9/16/14

Cases: Costs, Cases: Family Law, Cases: POOF!

  Raceway Ford Cases, Case Nos. E054517/E056595 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 16, 2014) (published)      In this one, the defense—except for one fraud claim as to one plaintiff—waxed plaintiffs bringing various consumer and unfair competition claims. Defendants’ reward was a $1,503,084.50 fee recovery under various statutes. However, that went POOF! on appeal when several

Scroll to Top