Cases: Costs

Costs, Discovery: Court Of Appeal Found Nothing Wrong In Allowing Recovery Of Routine Costs For Filing Discovery Motions, Even If They Were Unsuccessful And Costs/Fees Were Denied Against Defendants In The Discovery Proceedings

Cases: Costs, Cases: Discovery

No Authority Shown To Conclude Otherwise, With Routine Costs And Actual Discovery Sanctions Serving Distinct Purposes.                In BBBB Bonding Corp. v. Pilling-Miller, Case Nos. H050703 et al. (6th Dist. May 10, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff lost trade secret misappropriation and related claims, with costs of $34,989 out of a requested $44,989 awarded to the prevailing […]

Costs, Employment: Labor Code § 1194(a) Mandatory Prevailing Employee Statute Prevails Over Discretionary Routine Costs Provision Giving Discretion To Deny Fees For Limited Success

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

Reasonableness Of Fees Will Be An Issue On Remand.                Justice Viramontes, in Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc., Case Nos. B322697 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 25, 2024) (published), confronted a situation where an employee recovering $7,659.93 for minimum wage and overtime claims in a long jury trial then sought $296,920

Allocation, Costs, Trade Secrets: Plaintiff Obtaining Permanent Injunction Was Entitled To Contractual Attorney’s Fees, But Fee Determination By Lower Court Remanded To Reconsider 75% Reduction In Request And Denial Of Discovery Work

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Trade Secrets

4/3 DCA Also Determined Contractual Expenses Must Be Pled And Proven As Damages, As Well As Reversed A Nonsuit On Whether The Trade Misappropriation Was Willful and Malicious.                In Applied Medical Distrib. Corp. v. Jarrells, Case No. G062056 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 8, 2024) (published), plaintiff former employer Applied sued former employee Jarrells

Costs, Fees On Fees, Lodestar: Fee Award Reversed Because Unavailability Of Out-Of-Venue Counsel Should Have Been Considered, 30% Reduction For Pre-Trial Settlement Efforts Was Unwarranted, And Fees On Fees For Reply Work Should Have Been Considered

Cases: Costs, Cases: Fees on Fees, Cases: Lodestar

However, Denial Of Expert Witness Fees As Costs For Non-Court Ordered Witness Was No Abuse Of Discretion.                In California Open Lands v. Butte County Dept. of Public Works, Case No. C097297 (3d Dist. Mar. 4, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff reached a settlement with a county government in a conservation easement case with Clean Air Act

Costs, Section 998: Ouf-Of-State Deposition and Expert Witness Costs Were Justified

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

Section 998 Offer Was Proper, So Expert Witness Expenses Properly Awarded.             In Tayefeh v. Kern Medical Center, Case No. F085746 (5th Dist. Jan. 29, 2024) (unpublished), the lower court and appellate courts affirmed certain costs for prevailing defendants for certain out-of-state deposition expenses and expert witness costs.  Those determinations were affirmed on appeal.  Because

Costs, Reasonableness Of Fees, Unlicensed Contractors: Owners Winning Small Amount In Unlimited Case Against Unlicensed Contractor Were Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Or Routine Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Unlicensed Contractors

Reason Was That Owners Sought Overly Inflated Fees And Costs, With Fees Not Allowable Because They Did Not Relate To Construction Performance Under B&P § 1029.8.             In a very contentious dispute between residential property owners and carpentry contractors, the trial and appellate courts in Romero v. Brocca, Case No. B316715 (2d Dist., Div. 1

Costs: Because FEHA Costs Involve An Exercise Of Lower Court’s Discretion In Finding Case Was Frivolous, Costs Memorandum Is An Ineffective Means Of Seeking Costs

Cases: Costs

Same Rule Applies To Routine Costs Which Are Not A Matter Of Right.             This case is a good reminder for practitioners representing prevailing parties to seek discretionary costs through a noticed motion, not just through a cost memorandum.             In Neeble-Diamond v. Hotel California By The Sea, LLC, Case No. G061425 (4th Dist., Div.

Scroll to Top