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 Even the trial court in Pemstein v. Pemstein, Case No. G047107 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 6, 2013) (unpublished), following many lawsuits, two bankruptcies, and four appeals, hoped that his ruling on a […]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 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 19, 2013) (unpublished), an employer suffered a $7,777,620 adverse amended judgment in a class action involving employer’s vacation policy violations of Labor Code section 227.3.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
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 Here is an interesting unpublished decision dealing with whether a successful appellant is entitled to recover the costs of borrowing money to make an undertaking deposit with the trial court as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.
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 v. Playhut, Inc., Case No. B237169 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 23, 2013) (unpublished), even though merits and prejudgment interest issues were also involved.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
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 HPSC, Inc. v. Tiffany, Case No. D061142 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 19, 2013) (unpublished) is a situation where one defendant was dismissed upon an oral motion after a summary judgment argument, with the court expressly indicating the defendant was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
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
Government Code Section 21167(f) Was Basis For Reduction. In San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego, Case No. D059962 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 30, 2011) (unpublished), losing CEQA plaintiff did challenge the costs of preparing part of an administrative record and argued the County was not entitled to reimbursement of
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,
