However, Denial Of Costs Awards Were Reversed Based On Improper CCP § 998 Focus; Defendants Being The Costs Prevailing Parties When No One Won; And Errors In Adopting Across-The-Board Reductions For Jointly Represented Parties.
Golunova v. Akhromtsev, Case Nos. A167542 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 20, 2025) (unpublished) involved dueling complaints by members to a medical services holding company billing Medicare for reimbursement, with the company ultimately being liquidated through a receivership. Plaintiffs/cross-defendants and defendants/cross-complainants brought dueling contractual, tort, and statutory claims. None of the parties prevailed, with the lower court denying plaintiffs’ request for about $700,000 in fees and costs and denying various parties’ requests for routine costs (including against defendants who had served a rejected CCP § 998 offer by which two plaintiffs would get a total of $2,000, but with defendants not including an indemnity which plaintiffs wanted during settlement discussions).
The 1/4 DCA affirmed the fee denial, but it reversed and remanded some of the costs denials. Although disagreeing that claims and cross-claims were not “on the contract” as the lower court found, the no prevailing party determination was no abuse of discretion because neither side got what they wanted. A cost denial to some defendants was reversed because the lower court applied the wrong standard on gauging if the 998 offer was reasonable: it depended on an objective evaluation of the range of probabilities, not whether defendants did not address one issue of importance to plaintiffs regarding indemnification. Cost denials also were reversed, even where neither side prevailed, given that CCP § 1032 still makes defendants the prevailing parties for routine cost-shifting purposes. Finally, the lower court erred in making across-the-board reduction in costs involving jointly represented parties because the proper periscope is to examine each claimed cost item and determine its reasonableness with respect to issues which were intertwined among the jointly represented parties (discussing Fennessy, Charton, and Quiles, finding the case more akin to Charton than Quiles).