12 Cited authorities

  1. Goodman v. Lozano

    47 Cal.4th 1327 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 346 times
    Holding that where a plaintiff's prior settlement exceeds the award received at trial, plaintiff's net monetary recovery is zero and does not compel the trial court to designate such party as a prevailing party
  2. Nelson v. Anderson

    72 Cal.App.4th 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 283 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"
  3. Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District

    61 Cal.4th 97 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 148 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Concluding rule that prevailing defendant may recover attorney fees only if the plaintiff's "action was objectively groundless" articulated in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n 434 U.S. 412, 421-422 applicable to costs
  4. Zintel Holdings v. McLean

    209 Cal.App.4th 431 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 81 times
    Finding of prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure § 1032 is "not determinative" of whether that party is also the prevailing party under § 1717
  5. Wakefield v. Bohlin

    145 Cal.App.4th 963 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 74 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Wakefield v. Bohlin (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 963, 975–977 (Wakefield), the court explained that prevailing parties are classified into two distinct groups.
  6. Charton v. Harkey

    247 Cal.App.4th 730 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 50 times
    Reversing 25 percent across-the-board reduction of cost award for one of four jointly-represented defendants who prevailed against plaintiffs and remanding for determination of costs awardable to sole prevailing defendant
  7. Davis v. KGO-T.V., Inc.

    17 Cal.4th 436 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 71 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Considering similar language in the California Fair Equipment and Housing Act
  8. Acosta v. SI Corp.

    129 Cal.App.4th 1370 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 55 times
    In Acosta, a group of homeowners jointly sued SI Corporation on a single theory—product liability for an allegedly faulty mesh used in the construction of their homes—and lost.
  9. 612 South LLC v. Laconic Limited Partnership

    184 Cal.App.4th 1270 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 41 times
    Describing procedure and noting it "provides an orderly and efficient way of placing disputed costs at issue on a line-item basis"
  10. McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Superior Court

    115 Cal.App.4th 1229 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 47 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting selective waiver of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection where materials were disclosed to government, despite confidentiality agreement