18 Cited authorities

Nelson v. Anderson
72 Cal.App.4th 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 287 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"
Jones v. Dumrichob
63 Cal.App.4th 1258 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 152 times
Finding no abuse of discretion in awarding expert fees pursuant to a section 998 offer consisting of a cost waiver, but no monetary amount
Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn.
19 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) Cited 121 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial" under section 1033.5, subdivision
Melnyk v. Robledo
64 Cal.App.3d 618 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) Cited 157 times
Noting that "the trial court . . . is not bound by the itemization claimed in the attorney's affidavit"
Culbertson v. R.D. Werner Co., Inc.
190 Cal.App.3d 704 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) Cited 112 times
In Culbertson, the plaintiff rejected a settlement offer because it would have resulted in zero recovery due to a workers' compensation lien. (Culbertson, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 708.)
Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court
53 Cal.3d 1082 (Cal. 1991) Cited 98 times
Holding that "it has been established for almost a century that § 24 preempts all state law causes of action by a bank officer for breach of an employment agreement"
Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc.
195 Cal.App.3d 692 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) Cited 108 times
In Elrod, the Court of Appeal held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the section 998 offer was unreasonable.
Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
4 Cal.App.4th 807 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 77 times
Affirming taxation of costs, where memorandum listed "other expenses authorized by statute and case law per declaration," declaration did not address them, and party did not substantiate them after objection; presuming the "court, in its sound discretion, found that the charges were excessive"
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
Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.
93 Cal.App.3d 256 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) Cited 72 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 93 Cal. App. 3d 256 (1979), for example, the California Court of Appeal merely held that a stipulated judgment that was silent on costs could not be read to preclude recovery of costs by statute.
Section 998 - [Effective Until 1/1/2025] Offer served prior to resolution of dispute by arbitration
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998 Cited 1,478 times 36 Legal Analyses
Cost-shifting provision applies to a plaintiff who rejects a section 998 offer and "fails to obtain a more favorable judgment"
Section 68092.5 - Payment of hourly or daily fee of certain expert witnesses
Cal. Gov. Code § 68092.5 Cited 33 times
(a) A party requiring testimony before any court, tribunal, or arbiter in any civil action or proceeding from any expert witness, other than a party or employee of a party, who is either, (1) an expert described in subdivision (b) of Section 2034.210 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (2) a treating physician and surgeon or other treating health care practitioner who is to be asked to express an opinion during the action or proceeding, or (3) an architect, professional engineer, or licensed land surveyor
Rule 3.1700 - Prejudgment costs
Cal. R. 3.1700 Cited 278 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

Cheyenne Chen vs. The Irvine Company, LLC

18 Cited authorities

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"

Finding no abuse of discretion in awarding expert fees pursuant to a section 998 offer consisting of a cost waiver, but no monetary amount

Holding "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial" under section 1033.5, subdivision

Noting that "the trial court . . . is not bound by the itemization claimed in the attorney's affidavit"

In Culbertson, the plaintiff rejected a settlement offer because it would have resulted in zero recovery due to a workers' compensation lien. (Culbertson, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 708.)

Holding that "it has been established for almost a century that § 24 preempts all state law causes of action by a bank officer for breach of an employment agreement"

In Elrod, the Court of Appeal held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the section 998 offer was unreasonable.

Affirming taxation of costs, where memorandum listed "other expenses authorized by statute and case law per declaration," declaration did not address them, and party did not substantiate them after objection; presuming the "court, in its sound discretion, found that the charges were excessive"

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

In Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 93 Cal. App. 3d 256 (1979), for example, the California Court of Appeal merely held that a stipulated judgment that was silent on costs could not be read to preclude recovery of costs by statute.

Cost-shifting provision applies to a plaintiff who rejects a section 998 offer and "fails to obtain a more favorable judgment"