12 Cited authorities

Goodman v. Lozano
47 Cal.4th 1327 (Cal. 2010) Cited 345 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
Nelson v. Anderson
72 Cal.App.4th 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 280 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"
Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District
61 Cal.4th 97 (Cal. 2015) Cited 147 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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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"
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

Memorandum Points and Authorities

12 Cited authorities

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

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"

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

Finding of prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure § 1032 is "not determinative" of whether that party is also the prevailing party under § 1717

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.

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

Considering similar language in the California Fair Equipment and Housing Act

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.

Describing procedure and noting it "provides an orderly and efficient way of placing disputed costs at issue on a line-item basis"

Rejecting selective waiver of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection where materials were disclosed to government, despite confidentiality agreement