To This Court, Unified In Interest Doctrine Alive And Well. Interesting to see jurisprudence to evolve, even in unpublished decisions. In Bedi v. Dhaliwal, Case Nos. A135784/A137061 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 27, 2014) (unpublished), the reviewing court had to discuss the “unified in interest” exception to awarding routine costs, with one […]
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 Personalized Workout of La Jolla, Inc. v. Ravet, Case No. D061647 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 14, 2014) (unpublished) dealt with an interesting issue—whether plaintiffs winning fees/costs in a prior SLAPP proceeding were the parties with a “net
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
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,
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 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 16, 2013) (unpublished) involved a big fight between a developer hit with $6.5 million in developmental mitigation fees against assignee of a land owner giving an option to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
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
Lower Court Jurist Understandably Made a Mistake Given “Bleak House” Type of Litigation; Unopposed Motion Became Opposed Through Invited Error. Even the trial court in Pemstein v. Pemstein, Case No. G047107 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 6, 2013) (unpublished), following many lawsuits, two bankruptcies, and four appeals, hoped that his ruling on a
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
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
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
