Cases: Costs

Insurance: In Which the Court of Appeal Rules Insurer “Must Lie In the Bed It Made”

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Insurance, Cases: Mediation, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Standard of Review

Fifth District agrees the Case is “screwed up.”      The story arc of this opinion begins at a low point, and plummets.  “What the heck?I?,” begins the Court of Appeal opinion.  “At one point, the trial court commented, ‘This is one of the most screwed up cases I’ve ever seen.’  We heartily agree.”  Essex Insurance […]

Costs: Second District, Division 7 Seems To Part Company With Fourth District, Division 3 Over Procedure For Recovering Non-statutory Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Fees as Damages

  Division 7 Seems To Favor Trial Proof Method Over Post-Judgment Costs Hearing Approach in Unpublished Decision.      On June 23, 2010, we reported on Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. Mariners Mile Gateway, LLC, __ Cal.App.4th __, 2010 WL 2473831 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 21, 2010), where a panel of the Fourth District, Division 3

Costs: First District, Division 5 Addresses Standards Governing Award of FEHA Expert Witness Costs To Winning Defendant

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

  Interaction of Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 Also Explored.      This next case is a very scholarly review of the standards governing an award of expert witnesses fees as costs to a winning defendant in a FEHA action. It is Holman v. Altana Pharma US, Inc., Case Nos. A122783/A124451 (1st Dist., Div. 5

Costs: Government Entity Entitled To Award Of Routine Costs, Even If Verification Does Not Exactly Track The Statute

Cases: Costs, Cases: Sanctions

  Government Entity Entitled to Filing Fees as Costs, and Supplemental Memorandum Was Appropriately Filed.      The Fourth District, Division 3, in a tandem pair of decisions authored by Acting Presiding Justice Rylaarsdam, have confronted when governmental entities are entitled to recover filing costs even when no judgment is entered and that a costs memorandum

Deadlines: Fee Motion Filed 15 Days After Dismissal of Harassment OSC Satisfied Cost Memorandum Requirement

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines

Fourth District, Division 2 Nixes Overly Technical Argument on Deadlines.      You knew where this one would end when the appellate panel concluded at the tail end of the opinion that “Plaintiff’s contention on appeal elevates form over substance.” That meant the trial court’s order awarding costs, including attorney’s fees, in the amount of $8,078.35

Expert Fees Under Fees Clause: Fourth District, Division 3 Rules They Are Recoverable Through Routine Costs Procedure

Cases: Costs, Cases: Fees as Damages

Appellate Panel Disagrees With “Pleading and Proof” Approach in Carwash.      Many attorney fees clauses have language that allows the prevailing party to recover both attorney’s fees and “witness and expert fees.” Although Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 does not permit expert witness fees to be recovered as statutory costs, case law does recognize

Non-Taxable Federal Costs: District Courts Can Award Non-Taxable Costs Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Ninth Circuit So Holds in 2-1 Decision; Dissent Thinks Majority Decision Allows Recovery of Non-Taxable Costs as Attorney’s Fees in Most Fee-Shifting Statutes.      The next case is an interesting one, provoking a 2-1 decision on an important issue: when are non-taxable costs awardable as attorney’s fees under federal fee-shifting statutes. The question did not

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Costs: Prevailing Defendant Cannot Be Awarded Costs Unless The Plaintiff Brought The Action In Bad Faith And For Harassment Purposes

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs

$6,511.46 Costs Award Against Plaintiff Reversed, Because Bad Faith/Harassment Is Necessary Predicate For Adverse Costs Award in Favor of Prevailing Defendant.      In Rouse v. Law Offices of Rory Clark, Case No. 09-55146 (9th Cir. May 3, 2010) (for publication), a district judge awarded $6,511.46 in routine costs to a prevailing defendant in a Fair

Costs: Court Of Appeal Affirms Trial Court’s Denial Of Certain Routine Costs

Cases: Costs

Considers Expert Depositions, Subpoena Rush Costs, Expert Witness Fees, Exhibit Copying, Court Call Expenses, and Prejudgment Interest.      The prevailing party in civil litigation is entitled to routine costs. However, the trial court does possess discretion to determine if the expense was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation (in which case it is

Scroll to Top