§Why CasetextPricing

Protect Our Homes And Hills vs. County of Orange

Motion to Strike or Tax Costs

14 Cited authorities

  1. Hewitt v. Helms

    482 U.S. 755 (1987)   Cited 852 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a plaintiff received no damages award, injunction or declaratory judgment, or formal judgment in plaintiff's favor, but the defendant unilaterally altered the policies of which he complained, the plaintiff could not be said to be a prevailing party

  2. Sears v. Baccaglio

    60 Cal.App.4th 1136 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 180 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a prevailing party analysis under § 1717 is appropriate in contract actions because the prevailing party is not necessarily the party with the net monetary recovery

  3. Olsen v. Breeze, Inc.

    48 Cal.App.4th 608 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 133 times
    In Olsen v. Breeze, Inc., 48 Cal. App. 4th 608 (1996), the appellate court upheld the denial of a pro se plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees after his lawsuit led numerous ski shops to modify the liability language in their contracts in part because the action "did not vindicate 'an important right,' inasmuch as skiing is not a matter of public interest."

  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. MacQuiddy v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

    233 Cal.App.4th 1036 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 66 times
    In MacQuiddy, the defendant car manufacturer admitted liability for failing to repurchase or replace a car (MacQuiddy, supra, at pp. 1040-1041, 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 691), and the parties stipulated to a restitution award (id. at p. 1042, 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 691).

  6. Wohlgemuth v. Caterpillar Inc.

    207 Cal.App.4th 1252 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 67 times
    Holding that "consumers who successfully achieve the goals of their litigation through a compromise agreement" may recover attorneys' fees and costs as prevailing parties under the Song Beverly Act

  7. 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

  8. Ripley v. Pappadopoulos

    23 Cal.App.4th 1616 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that Federal Express charges are expressly disallowed—presumably because they constitute "postage"

  9. Science Applications Internat. v. Superior Court

    39 Cal.App.4th 1095 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 55 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming costs for graphic exhibit boards and video presented to the jury, as essentially "a computerized form of blowup or model which was apparently, in the opinion of the trial court, reasonably helpful to the trier of fact and possibly fitting within the category of ‘models and blowups’ " under the statute

  10. Sharif v. Mehusa, Inc.

    241 Cal.App.4th 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 22 times
    Finding plaintiff entitled to statutory attorney fees for her success on her Equal Pay Act claim, but defendant entitled to statutory attorney fees on plaintiff's wage claim where jury found defendant owed no wages

  11. Rule 3.1700 - Prejudgment costs

    Cal. R. 3.1700   Cited 276 times

    (a) Claiming costs (1)Trial costs A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first. The memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best