Second District, Division 6 Finds No Unreasonableness in Trial Court Awards. “Scorched earth” is a frequently bandied phrase in litigation. However, if a trial court believes that you as a litigant have engaged in it, this strategy may cost you big when it comes time for reckoning fee/cost recovery to the prevailing party after […]
Silent 998 Offer Came Back to Bite the Defense as Silence Proves Golden for Prevailing Party. Many of the decisions we examine have major object lessons for litigators to pay heed to. After all, we like to say that good case management skills are usually learned through mistakes. This next case illustrates this principle
Ninth Circuit Remands For District Judge to Determine Whether Costs Should Be Awarded Under Rule 54(d)(1). Resolving a split among federal district courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Quan v. Computer Sciences Corp., Case No. 09-56190 (9th Cir. Sept. 30, 2010) (for publication), decided that a prevailing party in an ERISA action
Sixth District Gives a Primer on RFA Expenses and Routine Costs Awards. Berkman v. City of Morgan Hill, Case No. H032205 (6th Dist. Sept. 28, 2010) (unpublished) is a virtual primer on the standards to be met to recover fees/expenses under the request for admission sanctions statute codified at Code of Civil Procedure section
Second District, Division 1 So Holds in Unpublished Decision. Kamhout v. The Von Companies, Inc., Case No. B208927 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 28, 2010) (unpublished) is a good reminder of the deadlines in which a winning litigant must file a costs memorandum. Unless a party or court clerk mails out a proper
Second District, Division 4 Orders Denial of Motion to Tax Costs. Civil Code section 1717 applies to fee award requests, not an award of routine costs. If a memorandum of costs itemizes routine costs authorized by statute (such as filing fees, process service fees, and exhibit copying expenses), the burden is on the
Second District, Division 3 Applies Clear Law in this Area. In Greene v. Minuteman Parking Co., Case No. B218223 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 22, 2010) (unpublished), the trial court awarded defendant $520 in routine costs after an in pro per plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his action. Plaintiff appealed, but the reviewing court concluded
Beyond That, Losing Defendant Did Not Present Evidence or Argument on Which Particular Costs Should Be Stricken. In Smith v. Pneumo Abex LLC, Case No. B217063 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 17, 2010) (unpublished), plaintiffs obtained a sizable jury verdict for husband’s alleged exposure to asbestos for products manufactured by several defendants. Many of
CRC 1700(b)(2) Provides the Governing Rule. In Kelman v. Kramer, Case No. D054496 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 14, 2010) (unpublished), defendant lost a libel suit to a mold expert plaintiff, who was awarded $1 nominal damages and $7,252.65 in costs as the prevailing party. However, defendant recovered $2,545.28 in costs for prevailing against
Presiding Justice Perluss, on behalf of the same panel of the Second District, Division 7 (yet in two separate unpublished decisions), gives us some good teachings on routine costs and Code of Civil Procedure section 998 issues. Costs: Mixed Result Means Prevailing Party Determination is in Lower Court’s Discretion. In Cordier v. Swanson
