Prevailing FEHA Defendant Must Bring A Motion To Obtain Discretionary Costs Because Losing Plaintiff’s Case Must Be Shown To Be Objectively Frivolous In Nature. On January 15, 2024, we posted on Neeble-Diamond v. Hotel California by the Sea, LLC, Case No. G061425, which was issued on January 11, 2024 as an unpublished opinion. We […]
Section 998 Offer Was Proper, So Expert Witness Expenses Properly Awarded. In Tayefeh v. Kern Medical Center, Case No. F085746 (5th Dist. Jan. 29, 2024) (unpublished), the lower court and appellate courts affirmed certain costs for prevailing defendants for certain out-of-state deposition expenses and expert witness costs. Those determinations were affirmed on appeal. Because
Reason Was That Owners Sought Overly Inflated Fees And Costs, With Fees Not Allowable Because They Did Not Relate To Construction Performance Under B&P § 1029.8. In a very contentious dispute between residential property owners and carpentry contractors, the trial and appellate courts in Romero v. Brocca, Case No. B316715 (2d Dist., Div. 1
Those Costs Not Justified. Prevailing party, after seeking expert witness fees under a successful CCP § 998 offer, sought some fees for one expert testifying on legal conclusions. Well, those costs were not allowed in Kreitzman v. Mercury Casualty Company, Case No. B325854 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 16, 2024) (unpublished). The reason is
Same Rule Applies To Routine Costs Which Are Not A Matter Of Right. This case is a good reminder for practitioners representing prevailing parties to seek discretionary costs through a noticed motion, not just through a cost memorandum. In Neeble-Diamond v. Hotel California By The Sea, LLC, Case No. G061425 (4th Dist., Div.
Rather, The Test Is Whether Whey Were Reasonably Necessary To The Litigation At The Time Incurred. In Garcia v. Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Case No. E079859 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 8, 2024) (published), after dismissal by plaintiff of an initial suit against a manufacturer for an allegedly defective mattress, manufacturer moved for costs
No Substantial Modification Was Obtained By Adding Costs To A Judgment. In Crokin v. Primrose, Case No. G061959 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 3, 2024) (unpublished), authored by Presiding Justice O’Leary, the 4/3 DCA agreed that adding routine costs, attorney’s fees, and interest to an original judgment through an amended judgment did not reset
Fifth District Split Decision On This Issue Did Not Need To Be Confronted. The Fourth District, Division Three, in an unpublished decision authored by Presiding Justice O’Leary, did not have to confront an issue which divided the Fifth District in Srabian v. Triangle Track Center, Case No. F080066 (Aug. 12, 2022), where the dissenting
Where Wage Claims Are Not Brought In Bad Faith, Intertwined Claims Do Not Give Rise To Costs Exposure. In Schwade v. South Pasadena Rehabilitation Center, LLC, Case No. B318644 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 5, 2023) (unpublished), employee lost a wage/hour claim lawsuit, although involving intertwined claims, on a summary judgment. The lower court
Probate Court Has Discretion To Determine Whether Costs Should Be Awarded, Who Should Pay Them, And Who Should Recover Them. Peccia v. Guerrero, Case No. B316614 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 4, 2023) (unpublished) is an opinion reminding practitioners that specific Probate Code provisions may take precedence over more general CCP prevailing party statutory
