Cases: Costs

Costs: Ninth Circuit Address Recovery Of Certain Electronic Discovery Related Expenses In Published Decision

Cases: Costs

  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

Costs: District Judge’s Denial Of Costs Requested Vacated With Respect To Prevailing RICO Defendant

Cases: Costs

  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, Section 998, Sanctions: Plaintiffs Prevailing In Boundary Dispute Entitled To Costs For Uncalled Expert Witness And Defendant Properly Assessed Sanctions For Filing Untimely Discovery Sanctions Motion

Cases: Costs, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 998

       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 Feb. 18, 2015) (unpublished) aptly illustrates.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

Costs, Judgment Enforcement: Appellate Dispositional Reversal “In All Other Respects” Meant What It Said—A Reversal Of Prior Costs Award To Real Parties Also

Cases: Costs, Cases: Judgment Enforcement

  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

Costs, Intellectual Property, POOF: Costs Against Copyright Infringement Plaintiff Went POOF Upon Reversal Of Summary Judgment In Favor Of Defense

Cases: Costs, Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: POOF!

  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.

Costs: Trial Court Was Not Divested Of Jurisdiction To “Fix” Amount Of Costs Award After Entry Of Judgment Awarding Unspecified Costs Of Suit

Cases: Costs

  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

Costs/Deadlines: Clerk’s Failure To Satisfy CCP § 664.5 Dictates For Mailing Notice Of Entry Of Judgment Meant Cost Memorandum Was Timely Filed

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines

  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”

Consumer Statutes, Costs, Prevailing Party, Section 998: Car Plaintiff In Song-Beverly/Magnuson-Moss Dispute Properly Denied Fees But Entitled To Costs

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 998

  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

Scroll to Top