§Why CasetextPricing

Risdana vs. Tejpaul

Motion to Strike or Tax Costs

10 Cited authorities

  1. Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn.

    19 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 119 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial" under section 1033.5, subdivision

  2. Melnyk v. Robledo

    64 Cal.App.3d 618 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 156 times
    Noting that "the trial court . . . is not bound by the itemization claimed in the attorney's affidavit"

  3. Garcia v. Hyster Co.

    28 Cal.App.4th 724 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that where detailed statutes did not expressly provide "for the award of costs in favor of a prevailing defendant against a plaintiff in intervention for any period preceding the filing of the complaint in intervention," such costs would not be allowed

  4. Wood v. Santa Monica

    151 Cal.App.4th 1186 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing section 15657.5

  5. Hadley v. Krepel

    167 Cal.App.3d 677 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 49 times
    In Hadley, the trial court ordered a significantly reduced amount of contractual attorney fees and costs to the prevailing defendant upon hearing the plaintiff's motion to tax costs; it reduced the fees even lower than the plaintiff requested in the motion.

  6. Lubetzky v. Friedman

    228 Cal.App.3d 35 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 34 times

    Docket No. B038108. February 20, 1991. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. WEC88335, Sara K. Radin, Judge. COUNSEL Richard Lubetzky, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Mark B. Shragge for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION LILLIE, P.J. Plaintiff Richard Lubetzky appeals from an October 14, 1988, order denying his request for sanctions and denying his motion to tax costs on appeal of defendants Robert Friedman, Erving Friedman, Monica Friedman, and Ariel Ganezer (hereinafter

  7. Clar v. Cacciola

    193 Cal.App.3d 1032 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that a creditor does not have standing to avail itself of a statute designed to protect spouses

  8. Moss v. Underwriters' Report, Inc.

    12 Cal.2d 266 (Cal. 1938)   Cited 49 times
    In Moss v. Underwriters' Report, Inc. (1938), 12 Cal.2d 266, 274-275 [9-12] [ 83 P.2d 503], it was pointed out that the statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033) which provides that a successful litigant furnish a memorandum of his costs and "necessary disbursements" in the action "does not contemplate that a defendant must pay all of the successful plaintiff's expenses in connection with the litigation," and that "the right to reimbursement for expenses depends upon the statutory provisions concerning costs and not upon the necessity, in the mind of the litigant, or his counsel, for the outlay."

  9. Whitney v. Whitney

    164 Cal.App.2d 577 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)   Cited 20 times
    Providing that alimony proceeding can be closed for the welfare of a child

  10. Stenzor v. Leon

    130 Cal.App.2d 729 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)   Cited 10 times
    In Stenzor v. Leon (1955), 130 Cal.App.2d 729, 735 [ 279 P.2d 802], in dealing with the costs of trial allowed by section 1032, Code of Civil Procedure, it was held that the trial court could look to the necessity of the disbursement and its determination was within the discretion of the trial court.