Cases: Costs

Costs/SLAPP: Plaintiffs Ultimately Losing Against Defendants Did Not Defeat Defense Argument That Defendants Were Routine Costs “Prevailing Parties” Even Though Plaintiffs Won Fees/Costs On Prior Anti-SLAPP Motion

Cases: Costs, Cases: SLAPP

  No Real Case Law on the Precise Issue, But Result is Logical to Appellate Court.      Personalized Workout of La Jolla, Inc. v. Ravet, Case No. D061647 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 14, 2014) (unpublished) dealt with an interesting issue—whether plaintiffs winning fees/costs in a prior SLAPP proceeding were the parties with a “net […]

Costs/Eminent Domain/Prevailing Party: Inverse Condemnation Plaintiffs Obtaining Earlier Reversal Of Defense Summary Judgment Entitled To Routine Appellate Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: Prevailing Party

  However, Attorney’s Fees Award Was Premature Until Judgment or Settlement Obtained Under Inverse Condemnation Fee-Shifting Provision.      In an earlier appeal, Plaintiffs had obtained a reversal of a defense summary judgment in an inverse condemnation case, with the appellate court directing that the lower court consider a request for fees under Code of Civil

Costs: Pro Hac Vice Admission Fees And Deposition Editing/Synchronization Expenses Are Not Recoverable In Federal Court, But Graphic Consultant Retainers/Fees Are Recoverable

Cases: Costs

  First Two Nonrecoverable Items, in Ninth Circuit Ruling, Depart From Federal Appeals Court Determinations to the Contrary.      The Ninth Circuit in Kalitta Air L.L.C. v. Central Texas Airborne System Inc., Case No. 13-15015 (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2013) (published) decided that “taxable” routine costs do not include (1) pro hac vice admission fees,

Costs/POOF!/Prevailing Party: Reversal of Impact Fee Component Judgment Meant Prevailing Party Status Had To Be Revisited, But Not Costs Award

Cases: Costs, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Substantial Fee Award Went POOF!      Estancia Coastal, LLC v. KB Home Coastal, Inc., Case No. D062219 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 16, 2013) (unpublished) involved a big fight between a developer hit with $6.5 million in developmental mitigation fees against assignee of a land owner giving an option to developer. The

Allocation/Costs/Prevailing Party: Wine Cellar Gets Hit With $28,659.50 Contract Damages Plus Prejudgment Interest PLUS $36,061.50 In Contractual Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Plaintiff Got Unqualified Win, With No Apportionment Needed; Two Winning Defendants Failed To Timely File For Costs.      This case stirred our curiosity, because it involves Veris Cellars, which appears to be a very nice winery located in the Paso Robles area in San Luis Obispo County. However, no matter who the litigant, beware

Appealability/Costs/Section 998: Defendant’s Failure To Appeal Motion To Tax Costs Ruling After Entry of Judgment Meant Appellate Court Lacked Jurisdiction To Review Costs Ruling

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

  Appellate Court Followed Fish v. Guevarra, Finding It Was Rightly Decided.      Many times in blogging over the years, we have stressed that postjudgment fees and costs rulings should be separately appealed as a preventive measure. The next case reinforces the prudence in following this general protocol.      Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc., Case

Costs: Andreini & Co. Decision Now Published

Cases: Costs

  Opinion Deals With Whether Costs Of Borrowing Money To Post Appellate Deposit Are Recoverable By Winning Party And Whether CRC 8.278(d)(1)(F) Is Retroactive.      On September 15, 2013, we posted on Andreini & Co. v. MacCorkle Ins. Service, Inc., an opinion determining that a winning party’s costs of borrowing money to post an appellate

Class Actions/Costs/Multiplier/Reasonableness Of Fees: Plaintiffs Winning Vacation Pay Labor Code Class Action Also Garner Costs Of $145,341.93 And Attorney’s Fees Of $5,722,008

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Costs, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  2.0 Multiplier Enhancement Was Justified.      In Molina v. Lexmark International, Inc., Case Nos. B227746 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 19, 2013) (unpublished), an employer suffered a $7,777,620 adverse amended judgment in a class action involving employer’s vacation policy violations of Labor Code section 227.3. The lower court also awarded plaintiffs $145,341.93

Costs (On Appeal): Pre-California Rules Of Court Amendment Is Not Retroactive, Meaning Successful Appellant Cannot Recover Costs For Borrowing Money To Make Appellate Deposit As An Undertaking During An Appeal

Cases: Costs

  Rossa Decision Found to Provide Dispositive Analytical Template.      Here is an interesting unpublished decision dealing with whether a successful appellant is entitled to recover the costs of borrowing money to make an undertaking deposit with the trial court as security during the appeal. The appellate court answered “no.”      In Andreini & Co.

Scroll to Top