Fourth District, Division One Cannot Reconcile Award, But Gives Respondents A Choice For Outright Affirmance With No Remand Proceedings. Once in a while, you see a case where appellate jurists display some uncanny savvy in resolving an appeal. In the next case, the appellate panel had difficulty reconciling a costs award […]
Third District Panel Splits Sharply on Reasonableness of 998 Offer Served With the Complaint Where No Formal Discovery Occurred. The next case we discuss centers upon “early bird” Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers, particularly one that was served concurrently with service of the summons and complaint in a personal
First District, Division Four Eliminates This Item From Lower Court Costs Award. In Belen v. Taylor, Case No. A118433 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 25, 2008) (unpublished), defendant Taylor suffered a default judgment under trespass/encroachment theories by which he was ordered to remove a fence/garage, ordered to award damages to plaintiff,
Fifth District Found Unambiguous Agreement That Rendered Erroneous a Discretionary Costs Award. In a contractual dispute between the City of Chowchilla and Carr Business Enterprises, the parties stipulated to submission of the case to a referee under Code of Civil Procedure section 638 (consensual referee statute), specifically stipulating that "compensation for
Second District, Division Two Reverses Cost Denial Order and Reminds Us of the Two-Step Analytical Approach to be Employed Under CCP section 1032. The next case is an excellent reminder of how Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 is to be construed in determining a “prevailing party” for purposes of an
High Court to Decide Whether Plaintiff Recovering No Positive Judgment Because of Section 877 Setoff Is Nevertheless the Prevailing Party for Fee/Costs Award Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032. In our June 16, 2008 post on Guerrero v. Rodan Termite Control, a recently disseminated First District, Division Three decision, we
Fourth District, Division One So Holds In Partnership Dissolution Case. In our June 27, 2008 post, we examined Roberts v. Ross, a recent Fourth District, Division One unpublished case construing trial court discretion to award certain non-specified, non-prohibited costs as routine costs “necessary for the litigation” under a catchall provision, Code
Fourth District, Division One Holds that Plat Map Expense Was Recoverable As a Routine Cost In Encroachment Action. Although we normally deal with attorney’s fees, which are more akin to nonroutine costs (a distinction that will be explored in a future post on the issue of whether fee awards must be
