Second District, Division 4 Affirms Costs Award in Favor of Prevailing Party. In Marina Glencoe, L.P. v. Neue Sentimental Film A.G., Case No. B203163 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 2, 2009) (unpublished), prevailing party defendant in a dismissed contractual breach action obtained a routine costs award of $14,697.58, which was appealed by the losing […]
Fourth District, Division 1 So Rules in Unpublished Decision. In Jameson v. Desta, Case No. D053089 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 23, 2009) (certified for partial publication, but pertinent part for this post unpublished), the Fourth District, Division 1 held that paralegal fees are not recoverable as “costs on appeal” under California Rules of
Lower Court Erred In Awarding $5,218.60 in Filing Fees, Motion Fees, and Registered Process Server Charges. In Meyers v. Fitzgerald, Case No. H032605 (6th Dist. Nov. 19, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiffs filed a complaint that was ordered to arbitration. The complaint was later dismissed without prejudice based on certain voluntarily actions taken by defendants. However,
Second District, Division 7 Agrees with Sister Court that Costs Are Awardable if Reasonably Necessary to the Conduct of the Litigation Based on Analogous Out-of-County Counsel Cases. In Jessen v. Mentor Corp., Case No. B210059 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 17, 2009) (unpublished), the Second District, Division 7 agreed with the Fourth District,
Second District, Division 8 Affirms $250,000 Fee Award to Prevailing Defendants. A broadly-worded attorney’s fees provision—such as one allowing for fee recovery in “any action whatsoever arising from rights and obligations established under [the] Bylaws, including but not limited to actions for damages resulting from a breach of these Bylaws or actions for specific
Second District, Division 3 Address Many, Many Procedural Issues in Unpublished Opinion. In Matusek v. Benn, Case No. B206776 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 29, 2009) (unpublished), two sets of defendants (the Murad and Benn defendants, each set composed of businesses and their principals) contracted to create an infomercial using an appearance by plaintiff
No One Prevailed in Noncompete Invalidation Battle. Where more than monetary relief is involved or mixed results are reached, the trial court has substantial leeway in determining which litigant, if any, prevailed in litigation for routine costs purposes. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1032(a)(4).) The next case illustrates this well, and also shows that appellate
Fifth District Determines Unlicensed Contractors May Not Offset Reimbursement/Disgorgement Claims Under Unlicensed Contractors Law. Here is a spin on our category POOF!, where a reversal usually means a fee/costs award goes away for the time being. This next case is a reverse POOF!, where a denial of a costs award was reversed and
Third District Finds Miller Rule Also Applies to Prevailing 998 Defendant. In Miller v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 147 Cal.App.4th 451 (2007), the Third District Court of Appeal decided that the availability of expert witness costs in a Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) action involving an injured railroad employee filed in state court
Second District, Division 4 Has a Good Discussion of the Difference Between “Clerical” and “Judicial” Error in Corrected Judgment Context. Here is an arcane one, but one that does arise every so often. In Lee v. H. Rauvel, Inc., Case No. B205454 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 25, 2009) (unpublished), the lower court
