Jim Gilchrist’s Minuteman Project Won Costs Award Against Ms. Courtney. In Orange County, many news and editorial reports have focused on the internal corporate battle for control of Jim Gilchrist’s Minuteman Project over the last couple of years. This maybe is one of the final battles with respect to a couple of the […]
$138,019.51 Was Costs “Hit” In This Case. Vail Lake USA, LLC v. County of Riverside, Case No. E050835 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 28, 2011) (unpublished) illustrates how expensive modern litigation can be, and only with respect to selective preparation of an administrative proceeding record in a CEQA case. There, appellants failed
However, Cost Determination Had To Be Remanded Because Plaintiffs Did Achieve More Success on Appeal. In Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera, Case No. F059153 (5th Dist. Sept. 13, 2011) (certified for partial publication; cost discussion published), a vigorously contested CEQA battle–this being the second appeal—the Court of Appeal affirmed a
Prevailing Party Entitled to Routine Costs in Labor Code section 1194 Overtime Compensation Case. Employer in Plancich v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. E050631 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 11, 2011) (certified for publication) defensed employee in an overtime compensation/meal and rest break/failure to maintain records case. However, the trial court denied
Amendment of Judgment to Include Costs Award Was Clerical Issue Not Subject to Strict Time Limits. In an interesting procedural decision of interest to any of us anal, time-driven attorney litigators, the Sixth District provided some interesting guidance on two issues: (1) the deadline timeliness for filing a costs memorandum after a notice
Attorney Winning Contractual Costs Assessment Dispute Collected Substantial Costs. Here is one demonstrating how prevailing party costs determinations are frequently discretionary in nature in multi-count litigation involving both monetary and nonmonetary claims. In Petrik v. Mahaffey, Case No. G042114 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 9, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff was represented by a
Fees Justified Under Government Code Section 800 and Revenue and Taxation Code Section 1611.6; Costs Of $19,788.92 Justified Under CCP § 1032. Here are two companion cases from the Fifth District, Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. County of Madera, Case Nos. F059256 and F059621 (Apr. 20, 2011) (unpublished), discussing fee-shifting statutes we do
However, Routine Costs Denial Was Reversed. The next case we survey teaches two lessons: (1) pay attention to mediation condition precedent clauses very closely, and (2) routine costs may be available to a prevailing party even if fee entitlement is foreclosed. In Horton v. Hamel, Case No. A128024 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr.
Section 998 Fee Shifting Justified One Award, While Trial Court Discretion Allowed Award For Judgment Below Unlimited Jurisdictional Threshold. It often pays to request the trial court to amend a judgment to reflect what was really awarded by a jury. In this case, the addition of a property loss award of about $4,500
No Provision Required that Winning Defendant Enter Costs Judgment Under Any Deadlines. Here is an interesting case that really is a big one to be archived in our “Deadlines” category. It goes to show you that recalcitrance, while not to be condoned, may not get punished unless there are statutory or court rule
