Chavez v. City of Los Angles
47 Cal.4th 970 (Cal. 2010) Cited 289 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that a reduced fee award is appropriate where a claimant achieves only limited success
Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District
61 Cal.4th 97 (Cal. 2015) Cited 147 times 8 Legal AnalysesConcluding 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
Heppler v. J.M. Peters Co.
73 Cal.App.4th 1265 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 158 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding the court erred in refusing to apportion attorney fees between plaintiffs and the sole losing contractor where much of the trial concerned issues not involving the sole losing subcontractor, but rather counsel preparation for and trial of issues involving three other prevailing party subcontractors
Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn.
19 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) Cited 117 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial" under section 1033.5, subdivision
Davis v. KGO-T.V., Inc.
17 Cal.4th 436 (Cal. 1998) Cited 71 times 1 Legal AnalysesConsidering similar language in the California Fair Equipment and Housing Act
Baker-Hoey v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
111 Cal.App.4th 592 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 42 timesNo. E032995 Filed August 20, 2003 Certified for Publication Appeal from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. RCV31496, Ben T. Kayashima, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Retired judge of the San Bernardino Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, Robert S. Warren, Robert W. Loewen, David A
Steele v. Jensen Instrument Co.
59 Cal.App.4th 326 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 38 timesIn Steele, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th 326, the plaintiff brought a FEHA action in superior court (before the unification of the municipal and superior courts) against her employer and two individuals based on alleged pregnancy discrimination.
Great Western Bank v. Converse Consultants, Inc.
58 Cal.App.4th 609 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 32 timesConcluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award costs to prevailing party for models, blowups, and photocopies of exhibits where good faith settlement was reached just prior to the commencement of trial
Guerrero v. Rodan Termite Control, Inc.
163 Cal.App.4th 1435 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 19 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn Guerrero, the court addressed how to handle an offset to the damages awarded in the jury verdict based on a good faith settlement approved pursuant to section 877. That offset (1) was based on money actually received by the plaintiff from another defendant and (2) the money received related to damages that were compensable under applicable law.In contrast, Lee received no money from another defendant and had no money paid on her behalf.
Sanchez v. Bay Shores Medical Group
75 Cal.App.4th 946 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 6 timesB124489 (Super. Ct. No. YC023053) Filed October 21, 1999 Certified for Publication Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Jean E. Matusinka, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Schmid Voiles and Suzanne De Rosa for Defendants and Appellants. Appell Wolf, Mervyn H. Wolf and Kelli D. Burritt for Plaintiffs and Respondents. GRIGNON, J. Plaintiffs prevailing in a medical malpractice action were awarded the fees of their medical experts as an item of costs. Because, in a medical
Section 1033.5 - Items allowable as costs
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5 Cited 1,497 times 2 Legal AnalysesPermitting various types of service as costs