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 […]
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 A recent unpublished decision, arising out of the same-sex couple 2008 decision, confirms that amici curiae cannot be exposed to routine cost awards should they lose
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
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
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)
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
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.
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
Dissent Believes Exxon Was Entitled To Costs For Large Damages Reduction. Almost one year after the wreck of the Exxon Valdez, the parties stipulated to entry of a $507.5 million judgment against Exxon, after the punitive damages award was reduced by 90% after several journeys through the federal appeals courts (including the U.S. Supreme
Second District, Division 2 Stresses That Record Must Show Discretion Was Actually Exercised. Although an order denying routine costs is reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard, there is an important qualifier to application of this rule—there must be an indication that the trial court actually did exercise discretion. If a judge misreads
