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 May 14, 2014) (unpublished) is a case where a CEQA petitioner claiming financial hardship had its case dismissed for belatedly moving to waive costs of certifying the administrative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
Only Routine Costs for Filing/Motion Fees for Nonfictitously-Named Defendant Was Properly Assessed Against Plaintiff. The appellate court in Lashgari v. Chen, Case No. D063300 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 29, 2014) (unpublished), on appeal, deleted $435 from recoverable costs in filing/motion fees paid by two fictitiously named counterparts of a nonfictitious defendant as
However, Remand Necessary to Determine if Lower Court Parsed Out Costs of Pretrial Transcripts. In Hellam v. Crane Co., Case Nos. A1380131/A139141 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 16, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff won a sizable asbestos verdict against defendant. The lower court then awarded prevailing plaintiff about $85,000 in routine costs out of a
Matter Remanded for Re-fixing of Fees Award. Plaintiff winning a California Family Rights Act, some FEHA, and two common law claims—obtaining a jury verdict of $287,400–moved to recover about $95,000 in routine costs and $1,675,627.50 in fees enhanced by a 2.0 positive multiplier for well over $3 million in requested fees. The trial
Trial Courts Cannot Determine “Prevailing Party” Discretionarily, If Categorical Fit Exists. Site Management Services, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless LLC, Case No. D057106 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 13, 2014) (unpublished) is a doozy of a case, involving colocation agreements between cellular tower and related service companies. “A very orange Bryan Jordan
DCA Also Addressed Some Special Costs Items in the Process; Sustained Cost Award Assessed Against Counsel When Counsel Did Not Appeal. Losing plaintiff in a FEHA case appealed after the lower court ordered that $34,906.12 in routine costs be paid by her (out of a requested $54,667.39). Her challenges to the award
Costs Were Not Governed By CCP §§ 1032 or 998 Given How the Matter Was Tried. Feuding nephew beneficiaries of a trust set up by a widow without issue tried a case in probate court involving claims of undue influence, lack of capacity, and elder abuse. The judge hearing the case, by a
Public Importance of Case, Closeness of Issues, Plaintiff’s Limited Financial Resources, and Disparity in Parties’ Economic Power All Justified Costs Denial. The Ninth Circuit in Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farm, Inc., Case Nos. 11-17608/12-15320 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2014) (published) affirmed a jury verdict/district court judgment against a losing plaintiff, who earned $11,622
