District Judge Properly Denied Expert Fees Requested Under § 998 Because More Restrictive Federal Law Applied. In First National Mortgage Co. v. Federal Realty Investment Trust, Nos. 9-16377 et al. (9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2011) (for publication), plaintiff won a breach of contract case, but the district court refused to award it expert witness
Fifth District Passes On Impact of Third District’s Opinion in Barba v. Perez. Just to show you how California intermediate appellate opinions do indeed enter into the jurisprudential “flow” of decisions, we now can report on how another appellate court has reacted to Barba v. Perez, 166 Cal.App.4th 444 (2008), an interesting CCP
Court of Appeal Disagrees that FedEx Charge Allowable Under Costs Statute as “Postage” Charge Equivalent. Many of the decisions we review are fairly technical, and the next one is no exception. It does show that 998 offer rejection decisions will be reviewed for abuse of discretion, but that costs decisions on legal entitlement will
$509,231 Scaled Back By Trial Court, But Sustained On Appeal. Here is an interesting substantial fee award. Half of what plaintiff requested, but way above the $95,000 Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer eventually accepted in the case on the eve of trial. Goes to show that fees do not have to be
Above: Wrapping It Up. As we wish all readers the happiest of Holidays, we now present our top 20 published decisions from California appellate courts or the Ninth Circuit. This list is not meant to slight other important decisions in certain areas, but these are the ones that “rose to the top” from
$3,800 Damage Award Garners $37,100 Fee Recovery. Under Civil Code section 1717 (a fee shifting statute tethered to a contractual fees clause), do fee awards have to be somewhat proportionate to the damages recovered by a prevailing party? The answer will come from reading our discussion of the next case. DC Painting, Inc.
Decision May Have Implications for Application of CCP § 998 in Diversity Cases. An important decision for federal diversity cases came out yesterday from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, pitting F.R.Civ.P. 68 against a state pre-trial settlement scheme in Arizona. In Goldberg v. Pacific Indemnity Co., Case No. 09-16243 (9th Cir. Dec.
Fourth District, Division One Affirms Trial Court’s “Wash” Decision on Issues. The next case involves a melange of fee and costs issues arising from a contract and civil rights case in which plaintiff recovered nothing on her claims but beat school district’s contract cross-claim. That gave rise to all sort of prevailing party claims
$14,283.85 in Expert Fees Affirmed Even Though The Defense Made Modest 998 Offers. In Patel v. Delbecq, Case No. H034417 (6th Dist. Nov. 15, 2010) (unpublished), the defense finally won a jury trial in a case where they never hit plaintiffs’ car but allegedly drove dangerously enough to cause a tire blowout in a
Silent 998 Offer Came Back to Bite the Defense as Silence Proves Golden for Prevailing Party. Many of the decisions we examine have major object lessons for litigators to pay heed to. After all, we like to say that good case management skills are usually learned through mistakes. This next case illustrates this principle
