Cases: Costs – Page 46 – Cal Attorneys Fees

Prevailing Party and Nonstatutory Costs: Trial Court Award Of $643,606.76 In Fees Is Affirmed Even Though Defendant Eventually Lost Summary Judgment Trial and Appellate Segments

September 15, 2009

Court of Appeal Does Strike Nonstatutory Costs Award, Following Ripley Over Bussey. In Gaggero v. Yura, Case No. B203780 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 14, 2009) (unpublished), defendant won a purchase agreement dispute with a contractual fees clause after the trial court found that a condition precedent—CC&Rs—was not agreed on between both sides. (Seller […]

Civil Rights: Court Of Appeal Affirms Lower Court’s Award of $6,659.15 To Plaintiff Who Had Limited Success And Recovered Only $5,000 In Disability Case

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Multipliers

September 14, 2009

Second District, Division 6 Rejects Plaintiff’s Request for Award of $114,895 in Fees and $27,441.35 in Costs. Although the courts will award appropriate attorney’s fees to prevailing plaintiffs in civil rights disability cases, they will also discount for limited success and overinflated claims of complexity in litigation of the case. Molski v. Evergreen

998 Offers: $15,000 Offer To Two Litigants For Resolution Of Their Actions Was Valid, Justifying Award Of $37,045.02 In Routine Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

August 22, 2009

Second District, Division 1 Finds Nothing Amiss About Substantial Costs Award. For those of you who follow us (whether more or less religiously), you know we have Categories on the left hand side of our home page. One of the Categories is “Section 998,” discussing the effect of Code of Civil Procedure section 998

Costs: Losing Party Did Have To Bear Appellate Routine Costs … It Was Not An Amicus Curiae

Cases: Costs

August 18, 2009

First District, Division 3 Sustains $12,000 Costs Award Because Litigant Was Not Amicus Curiae. For those of you briefing on behalf of amici curiae, do not despair. A recent unpublished decision, arising out of the same-sex couple 2008 decision, confirms that amici curiae cannot be exposed to routine cost awards should they lose

Federal Routine Costs: Ninth Circuit Affirms Cost Award Against Unsuccessful Civil Rights Plaintiff, Rejecting Untimely Cost Bill Argument

Cases: Costs

July 21, 2009

Court of Appeals Rules That Timeliness Measures From Date of Docket Entry. A U.S. District Court, N.D. California local rule requires that prevailing parties file their routine cost bill 14 days after entry of a judgment or an order. So, the question arises—does that means (A) when the decision is issued, or (B) the

Costs: If Not Allowed But If Not Prohibited, Trial Courts Can Discretionarily Award Costs If “Reasonably Necessary To The Conduct Of The Litigation”

Cases: Costs

July 16, 2009

Second District, Division 7 Clarifies Costs Discretionary “Safety Net.” Frequently, we have litigated cases where opponents or trial courts are disposed to fight award of routine costs unless they are expressly allowable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a). Well, believe it or not, that is not quite right. The next case puts things

FLSA: Expert Witness Fees Not Recoverable As Attorney’s Fees Or Costs

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

July 6, 2009

Nontestimonial Expert Costs Cannot Be Recouped Under FLSA. A colleague that co-contributor Mike worked with at a past law firm called and asked if expert witness fees for nontestimonial work were recoverable by a plaintiff in an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), given that 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)

Class Action: Settlement Order Vacated in Wage/Hour Class Action Settlement, Including Cost Award

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Costs

July 6, 2009

Second District, Division 8 Finds That Class Notice Capping Costs Would Not Allow For Higher Settlement Costs Award. In Clark v. American Residential Services LLC, Case No. B203476 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 6, 2009) (certified for publication), a trial court approved a wage/hour class action settlement for a total of $2 million, inclusive

Costs: Cost Award Affirmed Against Unsuccessful Party Where Initial Judgment Not Properly Served, Meaning Winner Had 180 Days To File Costs Memorandum

Cases: Costs

July 5, 2009

First District, Division 4 So Rules Based on Inadequate Appellate Record Many times before, we have counseled that an adequate appellate record is vital when seeking review of a lower court order/judgment by any federal or state reviewing court. That counseling was ignored in the next case, which means the appealing party was doomed.

Statutory Fees: Attorney’s Fees Motion Preserves Fee Request, With Claimants Not Having To File Costs Memorandum Seeking Fees

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Prevailing Party

July 1, 2009

Second District, Division 3 Rebuffs Contrary Technical Argument. In Brownstein v. Smith, Case No. B205864 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 1, 2009), plaintiff lost a condominium dispute against other condo owners arising out of CC&Rs. Defendants were entitled to seek fees under Civil Code section 1354(a), a fee-shifting provision applying to parties seeking to