Sanctions--Spahl v. Santiago, Case No. B236369 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 9, 2013) (Unpublished).
In this one, plaintiffs sanctioned under CCP § 128.7 argued that defendants' inclusion of a request for dismissal in its motion for sanction rendered the sanctions request invalid. Not so, because simply doing this did not contravene underlying any statutory purpose of 128.7.
Section 998--KTDA III Associates v. Just Mortgage, Inc., Case No. B240153 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 9, 2013) (Unpublished).
In number two, plaintiff--having its complaint dismissed--argued that expert fees cannot be awarded under CCP § 998 if the expert does not testify at trial. No again, because 998 covers the costs of experts who aid in trial preparation alone, even if they do not testify. (Bates v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hosp., Inc., 204 Cal.App.4th 210, 222 (2012).)
Costs--Rees v. Laubscher, Case No. B237529 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 9, 2013) (Unpublished).
Defendant voluntarily dismissed a cross-complaint after prevailing in the complaint brought by plaintiff/cross-defendant. The trial court denied defendant/cross-complainant's request for an award of routine costs. Defendant claimed this was error, but the appellate court said "no," because whether a voluntary dismissal was truly entered in favor of the defendant (here, a cross-defendant) is a facts and circumstances call when the cross-defendant didn't prevail in the primary dispute. (Damian v. Tamondong, 65 Cal.App.4th 1115, 1125-1130 (1998).)
Private Attorney General, Andy's BP, Inc. v. City of San Jose, Case No. H037173 (6th Dist. May 9, 2013) (Unpublished).
Plaintiffs were granted a petition for writ of mandate against City and gas station owner to set aside a negative declaration and prepare an EIR. Plaintiffs then sought fees of $83,120 under CCP § 1021.5. The fee denial was affirmed because plaintiffs had a demonstrated financial incentive to bring the lawsuit to block or delay the expansion of gas owner's station.
Comments