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 […]
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
Second District, Division 8 Gives Us a Good Reminder on Statutory Interplay of Costs Provisions. Although the facts are important in other respects, Trattmann v. Key, Case No. B204150 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 22, 2010) (unpublished) is a great reminder on how statutory provisions regarding an award of routine costs interact with each
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
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
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
$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
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
Fourth District, Division 3 Affirms Fee/Costs Award Based on Retaliation Jury Verdict Against City of Anaheim. In our category “Civil Rights,” we have surveyed many FEHA fee/costs awards because the statute is pro-plaintiff oriented. Here is one where there were both FEHA and non-FEHA claims, but no allocation was necessary because the claims
Second District, Division 5 Applies “Inconsistent Position” Doctrine in Challenge to Allocation of Referee Fees. What follows is an interesting application of the judicial estoppel doctrine in the referee fee allocation area. This doctrine is a good one to have in any litigator’s arsenal, especially in this age of modern litigation where litigants and
