Fourth District, Division One Rejects Engrafting Rosenman Requirements Into Routine Costs Proceedings. In our earlier posts of December 11, 2008 on Trisler and December 16, 2008 on Young, we discussed the Rosenman requirements in FEHA cases: the trial court must make specific written findings as to why the action was frivolous and about […]
Fourth District, Division One Also Finds Untimeliness Argument Waived, But Also Decides Merits in Favor of Costs Claimant. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1) does contain a time deadline for filing and service of a costs memorandum after mailing of notice of entry of judgment or dismissal—15 days. The lower court has also discretion
Second District, Division Four So Rules in Case Where Plaintiff Only Recovered Restitutionary Judgment Equaling Deposit Check Returned by Defendants Prior to Lawsuit Commencement. In our category “Cases: Costs,” we have surveyed decisions interpreting assessment of routine costs to a “prevailing party” under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032. This provision is fairly mechanistic
First District, Division Two Finds Relevant Geographic Market for Hourly Rate Determination Not Limited to Case Venue and Resolves Split in Decisional Authority on Costs in Favor of Trial Court Discretion. As the Thanksgiving Holidays have drawn close, our state appellate courts have issued a plethora of interesting opinions in the attorney’s fees/costs arena.
Fourth District, Division One Affirms Decision to Award Such Discretionary Costs. Following entry of judgment, defendant filed a costs memorandum seeking $4,053.75 in filing/motion fees (which were expenses for faxing the filings to messengers who then filed the documents with the court) and $1,140.20 in attorney travel costs for hearing appearances (including airfare, airport
Second District, Division Four Clarifies Scope of Fee Authorization in In Pro Per Plaintiff Situations and Denies Nonstatutory Costs Requested by Plaintiff. In pro per plaintiff, who was not a licensed attorney, successfully petitioned for mandate against the City of Agoura Hills City Council, seeking her attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party
Second District So Holds Even Though Corporation Won Prior Small Claims Action Brought By Same Opponents. The next case teaches a valuable lesson to litigants that are ordered to arbitrate a claim: in some situations, it might be preferable to request a stay of the action pending completion of arbitration rather than voluntarily dismissing
Court of Appeal Also Affirmed Denial of Routine Costs Because Litigant Did Not Overall “Prevail.” A recent decision from the Fourth District, Division 1 is a fresh reminder of the discretion trial courts possess and legal principles they must follow in determining whether a litigant is a “prevailing party” under Civil Code section 1717
Second District, Division Eight So Rules in Case Involving Non-Court Ordered Expert Witness Fees. Government Code section 12965(b) specifies that, in retaliation claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), “the court, in its discretion, may award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees
First District, Division Two Reverses Fee Award For Further Remand Proceedings to Scrutinize Substantial Fee Award. In our “Cases: Fee Substantiation” category, we have reviewed past decisions showing that California has a fairly “loosey goosey” standard for substantiating the amounts claimed in attorney’s fee petition requests. However, the next case illustrates
