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 In Lee v. H. Rauvel, Inc., Case No. B205454 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 25, 2009) (unpublished), the lower court
Fourth District, Division 1 Sustains Award of Referee’s Costs to Prevailing Party. In Behne v. Chodur, Case Nos. D052416/D053551 (Sept. 24, 2009) (unpublished), a brother and sister unfortunately got into a partnership damages/accounting donnybrook. An accounting referee was appointed by the court to determine the net proceeds of several real estate projects involved
Demonstrative Evidence and Computer Related Expenses Were Properly Allowed As Routine Costs. The next case is one that will remind practicing litigators to make sure they properly authenticate fee submissions in support of attorney’s fees request. The decision also has a nice discussion of some routine cost items that are recoverable in this
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 In Gaggero v. Yura, Case No. B203780 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 14, 2009) (unpublished), defendant won a purchase agreement dispute with a contractual fees clause after the trial court found that a condition precedent—CC&Rs—was not agreed on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
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
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
