Also, U.S. Supreme Court Brief Printing Costs Cannot Be Awarded as Costs By State Courts.
Defendant condemnee was allowed the opportunity, after a prior appeal, to seek costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1268.720, a statutory provision allowing appellate costs in an eminent domain proceeding in the court’s discretion (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. of L.A. County v. Wilshire Center Marketplace, 89 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1419 (2001)), even though he had been denied quite a few of previously requested costs in the earlier appellate proceeding. Defendant yet again sought certain appellate costs for filing fees, motion fees, court reporter fees, and U.S. Supreme Court brief printing costs. The trial court again granted the motion to tax costs, except this time it was for all of them.
Defendant’s appeal was unsuccessful in People ex rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Constant, Case No. E054542 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 24, 2012) (unpublished).
The reasons were primarily two-fold: (1) defendant did not timely file a post-appellate costs memorandum within 4 months of the remittitur issuance (Cal.Rules of Court, rule 8.278); and (2) the costs of printing briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court may not be awarded by the state courts (Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 181 Cal.App.3d 213, 223-224 (1986)).
Although normally landowner yet again gets his costs on appeal in an eminent domain action, appellate court can depart from that rule, and this case presented a rare circumstance for it to say that each side would bear their own costs of appeal--ending this one once and for all, likely. (Eastern Municipal Water Dist. v. Superior Court, 157 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1256 (2007) [appellate court’s departure from landowner costs obtaining appellate costs rule “should be rare”].)
Comments