Cases: Costs

Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees/Special Fee Shifting Statutes/Lodestar/Multiplier/Costs/Standard Of Review: Lower Court Did Abuse Discretion In Awarding Certain Expenses As Fees, In Failing To Allocate, And In Applying A Multiplier

Cases: Costs, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Standard of Review

Abuse of Discretion Standard Did Not Prevent Reversal When Record Showed Errors, According to Sixth District.      In an interesting contrast to the way the abuse of discretion standard was deferentially applied in our contemporaneous post in Murrell v. Rolling Hills Community Association, the Sixth District found that the trial court abused its discretion in […]

Section 998/Routine Costs: 998 Offer Not In Bad Faith And Routine Costs Are in Order Except for FedEx Charge

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

Court of Appeal Disagrees that FedEx Charge Allowable Under Costs Statute as “Postage” Charge Equivalent.      Many of the decisions we review are fairly technical, and the next one is no exception. It does show that 998 offer rejection decisions will be reviewed for abuse of discretion, but that costs decisions on legal entitlement will

Year End Wrap-Up: Mike & Marc’s Top 20 Attorney’s Decision Fees Decisions–Part 2 of 2.

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Costs, Cases: Experts, Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

     Here is the second installment of our top 20 decisions.      10. Jankey v. Lee, 181 Cal.App.4th 1173 (1st Dist., Div. 4 2010), review granted, No. S180890 (May 12, 2010) — authored by Presiding Justice Ruvolo; discussed in our Feb. 6, 2010 post.      Attorney’s fees are awardable to a prevailing defendant under Civil

Lodestar/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Lodestar, Not Cost-Plus Method, Governs Fee Recovery Under Special Red Light Abatement Fee Shifting Statute

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

  First District, Division 4 Finds McCullough Reasoning Inapt; Also Refuses to Upset Cost Award to City in Separate Appeal.      In City of Santa Rosa v. Patel, Case Nos. A124199/A124452 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 21, 2010) (certified for publication), City of Santa Rosa prevailed in a red light abatement action and was awarded

Allocation And Costs: “Scorched Earth” Tactics Can Cost You In The Fee/Costs Battle

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

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

CCP Section 998, Costs, And Consumer Fee Shifting Statute: Fee Award To CLRA Settling Plaintiff Affirmed Upon Denial of Defense 473 Motion Relating To 998 Offer Containing No Language Dealing With Fees/Costs

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

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

ERISA And Routine Costs: District Judges Retain Discretion To Award Or Deny Costs To Prevailing ERISA Parties Under FRCP 54(d)(1)

Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Requests For Admissions And Routine Costs: Denial Of RFA Expenses And Partial Denial Of Routine Costs Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Requests for Admission

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

Costs: Costs Memorandum Was Timely Filed Within 180-Day Entry of Judgment Window Because Court Clerk’s Mailing Of Judgment Did Not Comply With CCP § 664.5

Cases: Costs

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

Costs And Civil Code Section 1717: Motion To Tax Costs Award Reversed Because Nothing Showed That Section 1717 Applied or That The Claimed Costs Were Unnecessary Or Unreasonable In Nature

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 1717

  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

Scroll to Top