27 Cited authorities

Nelson v. Anderson
72 Cal.App.4th 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 287 times 5 Legal Analyses
Finding that obligations violated by limiting plaintiff's role were owed to the corporation because the decisions "amount[ed] to alleged misfeasance or negligence in managing the corporation's business, causing the business to be a total failure"
Jones v. Dumrichob
63 Cal.App.4th 1258 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 152 times
Finding no abuse of discretion in awarding expert fees pursuant to a section 998 offer consisting of a cost waiver, but no monetary amount
Sviridov v. City of San Diego
14 Cal.App.5th 514 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) Cited 69 times
In Sviridov v. City of San Diego (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 514, 521, the appellate court held that the trial court may award a prevailing defendant costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 in a nonfrivolous FEHA action.
American Airlines v. Sheppard
96 Cal.App.4th 1017 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 108 times
Holding that although defendants had been "disingenuous" and acted with "willful and conscious disregard" of the plaintiff's interests, their conduct did not "reach the level of despicability found in cases in which punitive damages were found to be proper"
Seever v. Copley Press, Inc.
141 Cal.App.4th 1550 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 88 times 4 Legal Analyses
Concluding "the trial court was well within its discretion in awarding travel costs to depositions"
Santantonio v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.
25 Cal.App.4th 102 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) Cited 108 times 1 Legal Analyses
Deeming waived and declining to consider plaintiff's argument that defendant's section 998 offer was invalid because it purportedly required acceptance by all plaintiffs, where plaintiff argued below only that there was no unity of interest among defendants and the offer was not reasonable
Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co.
162 Cal.App.4th 1014 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 71 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting that deposition reporters are ministerial officers of the court
Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
39 Cal.4th 507 (Cal. 2006) Cited 66 times 2 Legal Analyses
Assuming "good faith" is required
Melnyk v. Robledo
64 Cal.App.3d 618 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) Cited 157 times
Noting that "the trial court . . . is not bound by the itemization claimed in the attorney's affidavit"
Bach v. County of Butte
215 Cal.App.3d 294 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) Cited 81 times
Affirming trial court's refusal to hold evidentiary hearing on remand where prior opinion of Court of Appeal did not direct or authorize trial court to hold such hearing

Response Reply

27 Cited authorities

Finding that obligations violated by limiting plaintiff's role were owed to the corporation because the decisions "amount[ed] to alleged misfeasance or negligence in managing the corporation's business, causing the business to be a total failure"

Finding no abuse of discretion in awarding expert fees pursuant to a section 998 offer consisting of a cost waiver, but no monetary amount

In Sviridov v. City of San Diego (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 514, 521, the appellate court held that the trial court may award a prevailing defendant costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 in a nonfrivolous FEHA action.

Holding that although defendants had been "disingenuous" and acted with "willful and conscious disregard" of the plaintiff's interests, their conduct did not "reach the level of despicability found in cases in which punitive damages were found to be proper"

Concluding "the trial court was well within its discretion in awarding travel costs to depositions"

Deeming waived and declining to consider plaintiff's argument that defendant's section 998 offer was invalid because it purportedly required acceptance by all plaintiffs, where plaintiff argued below only that there was no unity of interest among defendants and the offer was not reasonable

Noting that deposition reporters are ministerial officers of the court

Assuming "good faith" is required

Noting that "the trial court . . . is not bound by the itemization claimed in the attorney's affidavit"

Affirming trial court's refusal to hold evidentiary hearing on remand where prior opinion of Court of Appeal did not direct or authorize trial court to hold such hearing