Cases: Costs

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      Here is an interesting unpublished decision dealing with whether a successful appellant is entitled to recover the costs of borrowing money to make an undertaking deposit with the trial court as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. […]

Costs: Denial Of Interpreter Costs Was No Abuse Of Discretion, But Denial Of Foreign Witness Travel Costs As A Matter Of Law Was Erroneous

Cases: Costs

  Witness Travel Expenses Are Not A “Taboo” Costs Item.      Costs is the issue we focus on in Shanghai Linzheng Import & Export Co., Ltd. v. Playhut, Inc., Case No. B237169 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 23, 2013) (unpublished), even though merits and prejudgment interest issues were also involved.      Here, a prevailing party

Costs/Prevailing Party: Lower Court Did Not Abuse Discretion In Denying Dismissed Defendant Costs When Dismissal Expressly Predicated On Each Side Bearing Own Fees/Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Be Careful in Saying “Thank You.”      HPSC, Inc. v. Tiffany, Case No. D061142 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 19, 2013) (unpublished) is a situation where one defendant was dismissed upon an oral motion after a summary judgment argument, with the court expressly indicating the defendant was dismissed upon the condition that both sides

Costs: Appellate Costs Properly Assessed

Cases: Costs

  Even Though $368,588 Was Substantial Award, It Was Justified.      One of the things many respondents want during an appeal is a bond or undertaking to “secure” the judgment while the matter is winding its away through the appellate process. That makes sense from several perspectives, but there is a downside as the next

Civil Rights/Costs: Routine Costs, Not Including Attorney’s Fees Or Expert Witness Fees, Can Be Awarded Without Showing Loser’s Case Was Frivolous, Unreasonableness, Or Groundless

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

  Fourth District, Division 2 Disagrees With Cummings.      In the civil rights area, Cummings v. Benco Building Services, 11 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1388 (1992) is a California decision oft-cited for the proposition that both fees and costs cannot be awarded against a losing civil rights plaintiff unless the action is deemed to be frivolous, unreasonable,

Costs/Specific Fee Shifting Statutes: Plaintiff Winning Challenge To Property Assessment On Narrow Grounds Not Entitled to Fees Under Specific Revenue & Taxation Code Sections

Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Also, Plaintiff Cannot Receive Trial Expenses As Costs Based on Being Awarded Costs on Appeal from An Earlier Appeal.      Plaintiff property owner, in a prior published decision, obtained a trial court judgment affirmed on appeal in connection with a determination that the Nevada County Assessment Appeals Board failed to apply the correct burden

Costs/Lodestar/Multiplier/Section 998: $989,258 Plaintiff Fee Award Affirmed Under Bane Act

Cases: Costs, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Section 998

  Additional Costs Awards for Experts and Trial Technology Also Sustained.      In Bender v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B236294 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 9, 2013) (published), plaintiff won an excessive police force Bane Act suit, with the Bane Act containing a fee-shifting clause. The lower court also awarded $989,258 to plaintiff

Costs/Section 998: Winning 998 Winner Did Not Have To Allocate Costs Among “Lockstep” Plaintiffs In Costs Memorandum Where Plaintiffs Were Represented By Same Attorney

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

  Apportionment May Be Required In Response to Motion to Tax Costs, But Trial Court Erred By Not Allowing Allocation After Raising Apportionment Objection Sua Sponte.      Justice Bedsworth, for a 3-0 panel, held in Morris v. Wilson, Case No. G047534 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 20, 2013) (unpublished) that a defendant is not required

Scroll to Top