Costs/Indemnity: Off-Campus Float Dispute Summary Judgment Meant No Fee Indemnity Exposure And Costs Were Properly Awarded to School District As The “Prevailing” Cross-Defendant

 

     Cauzza v. Julian Union High School Dist., Case No. D060364 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 18, 2013) (unpublished) is a great case for you educational practitioners on the law and type of proof to demonstrate a school district’s liability or non-liability for off-campus homecoming float activities. In the end, school district prevailed on an equitable indemnity cross-complaint through a summary judgment motion, being awarded routine costs as the “prevailing party” under CCP § 1032(a)(4).

     These determinations were affirmed on appeal.

     Sustaining the conclusion that the school district was immune under Education Code section 44808, there was no basis for finding that cross-complainant could be a prevailing indemnitee entitled to fee recovery under CCP § 1021.6.

     As to the routine costs award, district did prevail when it obtained a dismissal of the cross-complaint through summary judgment. Cross-complainant obtained neither monetary nor non-monetary relief, and obtained nothing against cross-defendant district. Because these are two express categories allowing for routine costs recovery under section 1032(a)(4), the lower court had no discretion to withhold costs from district. (Cussler v. Crusader Entertainment, 212 Cal.App.4th 356, 371-372 (2012) [discussed in our December 22, 2012 post].)