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 Guo v. Zhang, Case No. B235748 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 21, 2012) (unpublished) is a case where one defendant was held to be an alter ego of a business that was hit with compensatory damages for Labor Code violations and another defendant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
Public Hearings Remand Was a Limited One, At Best; Attorney/Paralegal Work Stricken From Cost Award In County’s Favor. A nonprofit organization out to save blue oak woodlands from the consequences of a development appealed a denial of a requested fee recovery under CCP § 1021.5 after they won a limited public hearings remand
In Kansaku v. City of Hermosa Beach, Case No. B230611 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 24, 2012) (unpublished), a non-prevailing party claimed that his motion to tax costs was erroneously denied on the ground it was untimely. Above: Young women surfing at Hermosa Beach. 1920-1950. Library of Congress. Nope, not under
In a construction defect matter, both sides appealed after a trial court found that judicial referee costs should be split consistent with a judicially-filed stipulation and after making an award of certain statutory costs to plaintiffs after finding that their CCP § 998 offers were valid. Both sides were disappointed after the
Costs Taxed for Korean Interpreters and Discovery Referee Expenses. Plaintiff, an ex-employee, did win compensatory and some punitive damages from his former employer, doing so through a complaint that included a lost wage claim. Winner then requested $260,817.60 in attorney’s fees under Labor Code section 218.5, a pro-plaintiff lost wage fee-shifting statute, and
Equitable, Case-By-Case Approach Prevails, With Substantial Costs Award Going Bye-Bye. Here is how this opinion began: “Given the complexities of litigation and the escalating magnitude of attorneys’ fees, it is no surprise that appellate review of attorney’s fees and costs has focused overwhelmingly on fees. [Parenthetical–yep, reason for this blog.] Nonetheless, costs also
Even Though Defendant Did Not Win Total Reversal of Damage Award, Total Costs of Appeals Bond Premium Were Properly Awarded To Defendant For the Appellate Win. Here is an object lesson for all appellate attorneys in a case: carefully assess whether you want an appeals bond. If you lose in a partially big
