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 Nov. 7, 2012) (unpublished) reinforces the fact that a prevailing party in routine civil litigation does receive routine costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b).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 In Bustamante v. T.O. IX, LLC, Case No. B241233 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 25, 2012) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a real estate purchase fraud case against defendants, with the purchase contract containing a fees clause.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’’
In Siciliano v. Singh, Case Nos. E052352/E053582 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 5, 2012) (unpublished), one attorney won quantum meruit fees based on a voided contingency fee agreement, with both client and attorney seeking recovery of attorney’s fees and costs (even though, ultimately, attorney did beat out–barely–a CCP § 998 offer once routine
Costs Award Affirmed, With Appearance Fee In Motion to Quash Proceeding Properly Awarded. Plaintiffs were bummed when the lower court awarded $23,750.12 in costs to some defendants winning a motion to quash based on lack of personal jurisdiction. They appealed, mainly arguing that defendants exceeded the 15 day deadline for filing a costs
Procedural Challenges to Costs and Fees Awards Did Not Prevail. Guo v. Zhang, Case No. B235748 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 21, 2012) (unpublished) is a case where one defendant was held to be an alter ego of a business that was hit with compensatory damages for Labor Code violations and another defendant
May Have Some Repercussions for Construction Defect Litigation Costs and Homeowner/HOA Fee Recovery. On August 16, 2012, our state supreme court issued its opinion in Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development, Case No. S186149 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Aug.16, 2012). The high court found that CC&Rs mandating arbitration between developers and homeowner associations
FRCP 54(d) Was Basis For the Cost Award in Tenth Circuit Decision. On Tuesday, May 29, 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari from the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Marx v. General Revenue Corp., U.S. No. 11-1175, to determine whether a prevailing defendant can be awarded routine costs (not attorney’s fees) against
