Second District, Division 3 Applies Clear Law in this Area. In Greene v. Minuteman Parking Co., Case No. B218223 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 22, 2010) (unpublished), the trial court awarded defendant $520 in routine costs after an in pro per plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his action. Plaintiff appealed, but the reviewing court concluded […]
Beyond That, Losing Defendant Did Not Present Evidence or Argument on Which Particular Costs Should Be Stricken. In Smith v. Pneumo Abex LLC, Case No. B217063 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 17, 2010) (unpublished), plaintiffs obtained a sizable jury verdict for husband’s alleged exposure to asbestos for products manufactured by several defendants. Many of
CRC 1700(b)(2) Provides the Governing Rule. In Kelman v. Kramer, Case No. D054496 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 14, 2010) (unpublished), defendant lost a libel suit to a mold expert plaintiff, who was awarded $1 nominal damages and $7,252.65 in costs as the prevailing party. However, defendant recovered $2,545.28 in costs for prevailing against
Presiding Justice Perluss, on behalf of the same panel of the Second District, Division 7 (yet in two separate unpublished decisions), gives us some good teachings on routine costs and Code of Civil Procedure section 998 issues. Costs: Mixed Result Means Prevailing Party Determination is in Lower Court’s Discretion. In Cordier v. Swanson
First District, Division 4 Discusses Brandt And Routine Costs In Catholic Priest Molestation Insurance Dispute. Howard v. American National Fire Ins. Co., Case Nos. A121569 & A123187 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 11, 2010) (certified for publication) is a virtual primer for insurance litigators, involving substantial upholding of a substantial bench trial award against
Second District, Division Four Reversed Costs Denial, Affirmed Fees Denial. The next case shows that courts pragmatically gauge prevailing party status when in comes to fees and costs awards—costs may be mandatory upon a voluntary dismissal, but not necessarily an award of attorney’s fees in the same circumstance (with the fees award being the
First District, Division 5, Except for a $49 Adjustment, Tells Everyone to Go Home But For a Minor $1,000 Appellate Sanctions. Salvio Street, LLC v. Lee, Case Nos. A122408/A123080 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 29, 2010) (unpublished) is an interesting case, not just for the legal issues, but because it demonstrates how pragmatic appellate
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
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
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
