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
First District, Division 5 So Holds. We doubt the wisdom of this appeal in the first place–after all, a monstrous $1,149.15 in appellate costs were at issue. However, In re Consumer Privacy Cases, Case No. A128862 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 30, 2011) (unpublished) has some nice discussions on two issues that
Published Part of Decision Holds That Order Taxing Costs Allowable After An Appeal Awards Costs Is Itself an Appealable Order. Krikorian Premier Theatres, LLC v. Westminster Central, LLC, Case Nos. E047523/E049537 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 24, 2011) (certified for partial publication) is a wild decision in that a prior appellate reversal completely
Fourth District, Division 3 Decides Either Litigant or Attorney Is Responsible for Reimbursement. Government Code section 68097.2(b) provides that when a peace officer is subpoenaed to testify, “the party at whose request the subpoena is issued shall reimburse the public entity for the full cost to the public entity incurred in paying the
Fifth District So Decides, But Lays Down No Absolute Rule On Subject Matter Jurisdiction Issue. Brown v. Desert Christian Center, Case No. F060139 (5th Dist. Mar. 17, 2011) (certified for publication) involved a personal injury that was dismissed on the jurisdictional defense that the involved injuries were within the exclusive province of the worker’s
Genital Herpes Case With Costs Ruling Certified for Publication. In our March 2, 2011 post, we discussed Behr v. Redmond, Case No. E04833 (4th Dist., Div. 2 March 2, 2011), a genital herpes case in which a costs award for expert witness fees was reversed because no CCP § 998 offer was proven
ABC-Learn, Inc. v. Coronado, Case No. B219107 (2d Dist., Div. 2 March 2, 2011) (Unpublished). In this one, a prevailing defendant appealed a lower court’s denial of his request to recoup $136,140 in attorney’s fees under a commercial lease dispute involving a lease agreement and unsigned purchase agreement/joint escrow instructions. The problem here was
“Unity of Interest” Doctrine Gives Discretion To Lower Courts in Awarding Costs. In Toland v. Arredondo, Case Nos. F058619/F059182 (5th Dist. Mar. 1, 2011) (unpublished), one plaintiff was awarded $114,590 and another was awarded $12,585 by a jury against a corporate defendant, although an individual defendant (unified in interest with the corporate defendant)
