SEARCH THIS BLOG

Categories

November 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

« Routine Costs: Trial Courts Misreading Of Judgment And Failure To Exercise Discretion In Determining Prevailing Party For Costs Purposes Required Remand | Main | Family Law Awards: Duplicative Civil Proceeding To Family Law Matter Does Not Necessarily Justify Family Code Section 271 Sanctions »

June 15, 2009

Comments

S. Andre

This is from the leg. history (1993 AB 58)and seems to support the view that the Legislature intended to codify the Bank of San Pedro holding as to 998 costs, but leave the court discretion "in all other cases" to require an undertaking -

3. Underwriting or bond requirement for appeal of cost awards

The CCP sets forth the general rule that a judgment for routine costs is stayed by the filing of an appeal. However, existing law provides that extraordinary costs are not automatically subject to a stay of enforcement; a stay is only allowed for these costs if a party has posted a bond.

The Supreme Court in Bank of San Pedro v. Superior Court, (1992) 3 Cal.4th 797, held that costs which have been awarded pursuant to C.C.P. 998 (failure of a party to accept fair compromise offer) or C.C.P. 1141.21 (a judgment in a trial de novo that is less favorable then the arbitration award) are extraordinary costs. Thus, a bond or undertaking must be filed in order to stay enforcement of those orders.

AB 58 would codify the San Pedro case. It would also give to trial courts the discretion to condition a stay of an award of cost in all other cases upon the filing of a sufficient bond or undertaking.

The comments to this entry are closed.