Cases: Costs

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

Judicial Estoppel: Appealing Party Estopped To Challenge Referee Fee Split Based On Prior Pleadings

Cases: Costs, Cases: Estoppel

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

Civil Rights: EEOC Stung With $4,560,285.11 Fee/Costs Award In Title VII Section Suit Found To Be Groundless By Iowa U.S. District Judge

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

Court Discusses Substantive Fee Shifting Statute, Lodestar Factors, and Non-Cost Expense Reimbursement Issues in Recent Decision.       EEOC v. Boot, Case No. 07-CV-95-LLR (N.D. Iowa Feb. 9, 2010 Order), is an unusual decision where a United States district judge awarded $4,560,285.11 in fees and costs (broken down as $4,004,371.65 in fees, $463,071.25 in “non-cost”

Costs: Defendant Did Not Have To Apportion Costs Among Other Co-Defendants Where Costs Were Determined At Case’s Conclusion

Cases: Costs

Second District, Division 3 Distinguishes Other Costs Apportionment Decisions.      In Fennessy v. DeLeuw-Cather Corp., 218 Cal.App.3d 1192 (1990), the appellate court held that when a prevailing party incurs costs jointly with other parties who remain in the litigation and seeks recovery of costs during the pendency of the litigation, that party may recover only

Costs Deadline, Fee Substantiation and Allocation: Fees/Costs Awarded In Anti-Speculation Liquidated Damages Clause Dispute Affirmed In Favor Of Developer

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Liquidated Damages Clause Found Valid; Fees/Costs Award Sustained Also.      This next decision should be of substantive interest to both developers and our readers interested in fee issues.      Although unpublished, Beck Properties, Inc. v. Hameed, Case No. C058279 (Dec. 11, 2009) decided that an anti-speculation clause in a purchase agreement between a developer and

Scroll to Top