Abuse of Discretion in Various Costs Orders Not Shown.
Kronick v. Mackston, Case No. B245492 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 10, 2014) (unpublished) is a wild dog incident case in Corona Del Mar Park in Pacific Palisades. Plaintiff sued defendant claiming that defendant kicked her dog and then threatened plaintiff, while defendant countersued alleging plaintiff’s dog bit him on the back right calf (as well as sued for defamation, abuse of process, and emotional distress). Defendant also countersued plaintiff’s ex-husband, although dismissing the cross-claims against husband before trial and most of the cross-claims against plaintiff before trial.
The dog involved in the case was a seven-month old Dalmatian puppy.
Wikipedia. Author: Mago tecnologico. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
The jury returned verdicts by which neither side gained anything on their respective complaint and cross-complaint.
This resulted in a situation where all three parties were prevailing for purposes of routine cost awards. Ex-husband (cross-defendant) requested $14,520,86 in costs against defendant/cross-complainant, but the lower court struck $8,075.01 on the basis that the claimed jury fees were refundable and other costs were not related to the successful defense of the defendant’s cross-claims (rather related to plaintiff’s claims), with ex-husband appealing this determination of only awarding him $6,445.85 in costs. Plaintiff (as winning cross-defendant) requested $8,279.48 in costs against defendant/losing cross-complainant, garnering a trial court award of $5,609.48, the only cost award not appealed. Defendant sought $15,995.93 in costs against plaintiff, eventually being awarded $13,305.93 in costs, prompting an appeal by plaintiff.
The two appealed costs awards were affirmed.
In the routine costs area, the lower court has considerable discretion in determining if mandatory or discretionary costs items are “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation” and are “reasonable in amount.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(c).) With respect to ex-husband/winning cross-defendant, the lower court did not err in finding the claimed jury fees could were refundable and other costs were related to plaintiff’s claims rather than the cross-claims upon which he prevailed. Wife challenged an award of $2,484.80 in travel expenses to defendant’s parents because his mother (a retired emergency room nurse) testified that a wound was consistent with a calf bite, but this award was no abuse of discretion because the lower court could credit that her testimony was reasonably necessary to confront the issues involved during the trial.
Comments