§Why CasetextPricing

Patch vs. Jackson Demarco Tidus & Peckenpaugh

Motion to Strike or Tax Costs

19 Cited authorities

  1. Ketchum v. Moses

    24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,770 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof

  2. Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp.

    178 Cal.App.4th 44 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 324 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that meals are not recoverable under Cal. Civ. P.Code § 1033.5.

  3. Nelson v. Anderson

    72 Cal.App.4th 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 282 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"

  4. Serrano v. Unruh

    32 Cal.3d 621 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 414 times
    Holding that "unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust," "parties who qualify for a fee should recover for all hours reasonably spent, including those on fee-related matters."

  5. Arntz Contracting Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

    47 Cal.App.4th 464 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 168 times
    Holding that "bad thoughts are no tort" and that "our focus for determining the wrongfulness of those intentional acts should be on the defendant's objective conduct," (citing Boyson v. Thorn, 98 Cal. 578, 33 P. 492 (1893), and Justice Mosk's concurrence in Della Penna); Korea Supply Co., 109 Cal.Rptr.2d at 427

  6. Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. Mariners Mile Gateway, LLC

    185 Cal.App.4th 1050 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 102 times
    Holding that a post-trial motion is sufficient for the recovery of expert witness fees in cases where the parties' agreement authorized the recovery of such witness fees

  7. Meister v. Regents of the University of Calif

    67 Cal.App.4th 437 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 132 times
    Holding that trial court may reduce attorney fee award on basis of plaintiff's rejection of informal settlement offer that exceeded plaintiff's ultimate recovery

  8. Seever v. Copley Press, Inc.

    141 Cal.App.4th 1550 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 87 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Concluding "the trial court was well within its discretion in awarding travel costs to depositions"

  9. Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn.

    19 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 117 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial" under section 1033.5, subdivision

  10. Melnyk v. Robledo

    64 Cal.App.3d 618 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 155 times
    Noting that "the trial court . . . is not bound by the itemization claimed in the attorney's affidavit"