Nominal Defendant Made a General Appearance, So Defendant Prevailed. An in pro per plaintiff losing a suit against certain contractors and a “nominal defendant” (a development association set up to maintain roads throughout the private development) was obviously unhappy that a lower court awarded $1,121 in costs against him and in favor of […]
Did Not Matter that Action Was Re-Filed. Kleiman v. Cluff, Case No. B230932 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 20, 2012) (unpublished) involved a defendant awarded $12,263.20 in routine costs after plaintiff filed a “without prejudice” dismissal in an action, although a second action was re-filed later. The costs award was affirmed on
Losing plaintiff in an insurance dispute must have been agasp when he was hit with a costs award of $93,369.05, although the trial court did lop off one-third of the requested $140,053.58. (The costs mainly included witness fees and deposition costs.) Plaintiff was not successful in his appeal in Morgan v. Pacific
Although one living partner in a joint venture with a deceased partner lost a probate cross-petition battle regarding distribution of shares from the joint venture, living/nonprevailing partner was successful in resisting the subsequent costs award in favor of the prevailing parties. Reason? It was untimely filed. As explained in Friedman v.
The prevailing party in Gardner v. McCoy, Case No. C067564 (3d Dist. Nov. 13, 2012) (unpublished) was bummed when the lower court did not award him the costs of an appraisal under a lease clause saying that the successful party would recover his “costs and expenses.” That ruling by the trial judge was
Prevailing Parties Get Them, With No Frivolity Requirement Necessary, But In Pro Per Litigant Dodged Appeal Sanctions. Koresko v. De La Rosa, Case No. F064375 (5th Dist. Nov. 7, 2012) (unpublished) reinforces the fact that a prevailing party in routine civil litigation does receive routine costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b).
Taxing Party Validly Shifted Burden, Which Was Based On Hearsay “Estimate” Obtained From Court Clerk, and County Did Not Meet Its Burden. Although routine costs are generally proven on a prima facie basis by a verified costs memorandum, this does not mean that an objecting party cannot raise objections which may shift the
However, Failure to File Costs Memorandum Meant $80,758.75 Costs Award Went Away. In Bustamante v. T.O. IX, LLC, Case No. B241233 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 25, 2012) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a real estate purchase fraud case against defendants, with the purchase contract containing a fees clause. A judicial referee awarded attorneys fees
Also, U.S. Supreme Court Brief Printing Costs Cannot Be Awarded as Costs By State Courts. Defendant condemnee was allowed the opportunity, after a prior appeal, to seek costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1268.720, a statutory provision allowing appellate costs in an eminent domain proceeding in the court’s discretion (Los Angeles Unified
Other Cases Finding These Costs Nonrecoverable Are Distinguishable. There are two important principles at play in the next case we discuss with respect to recovery of routine costs by a prevailing party: (1) the lower court has a large latitude of discretion to award costs “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation’’
