§Why CasetextPricing

Andrea Knohl-Trider vs. Rebecca Foster

Motion to Strike or Tax Costs

22 Cited authorities

  1. Nelson v. Anderson

    72 Cal.App.4th 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 283 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"

  2. Olson v. Automobile Club of Southern California

    42 Cal.4th 1142 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 121 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Section 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure does not separately authorize recovering expert witness fees

  3. Jones v. Dumrichob

    63 Cal.App.4th 1258 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 151 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

  4. Seever v. Copley Press, Inc.

    141 Cal.App.4th 1550 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 88 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Concluding "the trial court was well within its discretion in awarding travel costs to depositions"

  5. 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

  6. 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.)

  7. Ignacio v. Caracciolo

    2 Cal.App.5th 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Ignacio, the Court of Appeal concluded a statutory offer containing an "incredibly broad" release provision, "encompass[ing] numerous claims the releasers may have against the releasees beyond those at issue in the lawsuit," was not valid under section 998. (Ignacio, at p. 88, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 76.)

  8. Sanford v. Rasnick

    246 Cal.App.4th 1121 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 30 times
    In Sanford v. Rasnick (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1121 (Sanford), the defendants served a section 998 offer on the plaintiff conditioned on "[t]he notarized execution and transmittal of a written settlement agreement and general release."

  9. Chen v. Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club

    164 Cal.App.4th 117 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Criticizing "selective[ ]quoting" of the settlement offer

  10. Huber, Hunt Nichols, Inc. v. Moore

    67 Cal.App.3d 278 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 99 times
    Involving expert testimony regarding standard of care applicable to architects

  11. Section 1542 - Claims not known by creditor at time of executing release

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1542   Cited 1,681 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a general release does not extend to unknown claims

  12. Section 631 - Fee paid by party demanding jury; deposit by party demanding jury trial; waiver of jury trial

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 631   Cited 342 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Listing ways a party can waive trial by jury

  13. Rule 3.1700 - Prejudgment costs

    Cal. R. 3.1700   Cited 277 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