Second District Panel Reverses Lower Court’s Denial of Costs to Winning Defendant. Defendant won a bench trial in New Life Agency, Inc. v. Beitler Services, Inc., Case No. B224724 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 23, 2012) (unpublished), but denied costs to defendant based on the perception that “both sides have dirty hands.” The
Public Entity Does Not Have to Provide Cost Estimate Under Public Resources Code Section 21167.6. Ya know, unpublished decisions sometimes have gems in them. The next one is no departure, potentially indicating a departure with a prior appellate decision on a cost issue under Public Resources Code section 21167.6. In Landwatch San
PowerPoint Argument Presentations No Go; Videotaped Depositions A Go Under the Right Facts; And “Bright Line” Rule Offered On Cost Reimbursement Where Plaintiff Makes Successive 998 Offers. As you can probably tell from our topical headlines above, the Second District, Division 1 issued an important routine costs/CCP § 998 cost-shifting opinion in Martinez
Denial of 998 Cost Enhancements Was Not Improper. Maaso v Signer, Case No. B228314 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 7, 2012) (certified for publication) is one of those lessons for all of us practitioners who arbitrate to take to heart–make sure you check the arbitration submission agreement for breadth of issues, meaning that
First District, Division 1 May Have Intimated Disagreement With Thrifty Payless in Recent Unpublished Decision. Way back in our June 23, 2010 post on Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. Mariners Mile Gateway, LLC, 185 Cal.App.4th 1050 (2010), we knew that this case would engender some further judicial feedback. It basically held that expert witness
Main Holding is that Winning Defendant Can Recoup Expert Fees Paid In Deposing Plaintiff’s Expert. Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth, on behalf of a 3-0 panel of the Fourth District, Division 3, authored a colorful opinion in the routine costs/section 998 area in Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc., Case No. G044718 (4th Dist., Div.
. . . On Adequate Fee Substantiation, Cost Recovery Under Civil Code Section 3334(a), And Deadlines For Submitting Amended Fee Request Information This next case is a wild thing, a second appeal involving litigants entangled in a subsurface trespass case where plaintiff was seeking to recover for defendant’s environmental contamination of its groundwater.
Situation Normal . . . Kempton v. Cooper, Case No. B229912 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 25, 2012) (unpublished) was a situation where the appellate court affirmed a trial court’s award of fees on appeal of $53,440 and costs on appeal of $1,410. There was a snafu on the costs to be awarded, necessitating
Plaintiffs’ Dismissal Cemented Costs Entitlement. Although coming about in convoluted fashion, defendant was awarded certain costs in an adjacent neighbor tree dispute where plaintiffs won a temporary restraining order but defendant voluntarily made some construction changes so that a preliminary injunction was ultimately denied. Plaintiffs then dismissed their action without prejudice. The trial
Deposition Costs Disallowed Where No Detail Provided. The next case from our local Santa Ana appellate court teaches two lessons: (1) prevailing parties filing costs memoranda need to utilize the entire Judicial Council forms, including the worksheets which have more detail that just the initial summary page; and (2) Civil Code section 1717
