13 Cited authorities

Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District
61 Cal.4th 97 (Cal. 2015) Cited 149 times 8 Legal Analyses
Concluding 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
Roman v. BRE Properties, Inc.
237 Cal.App.4th 1040 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 83 times 2 Legal Analyses
Noting at summary judgment, "conversational use of the term 'disability' is not proof that [plaintiff's] condition, whatever it may be, equates to a disability within the meaning of the statutory definitions."
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
Cummings v. Benco Building Services
11 Cal.App.4th 1383 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 122 times 1 Legal Analyses
Denying fees to prevailing defendant under FEHA where the action was "a routine case in which the plaintiff merely failed to achieve success on her claim"
Rosenman v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs
91 Cal.App.4th 859 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 82 times
Concluding that attorney's fees inappropriate in part because cause of action was not "obviously contrary to undisputed facts or well established legal principles" specifically precluding recovery for the type of injury alleged
Jersey v. John Muir Medical Center
97 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 64 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding the Christiansburg determination must be made toward the entirety of the action, and not just the FEHA claim
Arave v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
19 Cal.App.5th 525 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) Cited 32 times 1 Legal Analyses
Interrupting counsel's questioning, directing counsel to allow witnesses to finish their answers, and directing counsel to "cut to the chase" in questions did not demonstrate bias
Mangano v. Verity Inc.
167 Cal.App.4th 944 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 43 times 1 Legal Analyses
Explaining that prevailing defendants may recover attorney's fees under Cal. Gov. Code § 12965 "only if the plaintiff's lawsuit is deemed unreasonable, frivolous, meritless, or vexatious"
Robert v. Stanford Univ.
224 Cal.App.4th 67 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 31 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Robert, the Sixth District found that the trial court's oral findings demonstrated that the court applied the correct standards and concluded that the court's failure to put its findings in writing was not prejudicial and did not itself justify reversal.
Dane-Elec Corp., U.S. v. Bodokh
35 Cal.App.5th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) Cited 15 times
Explaining as to section 218.5, subdivision, that "[c]ourts have uniformly recognized that such unilateral fee-shifting statutes ‘reflect a considered legislative judgment that prevailing defendants should not receive fees’ "
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"

Reply To Opp To Motion To Tax Costs

13 Cited authorities

Concluding 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

Noting at summary judgment, "conversational use of the term 'disability' is not proof that [plaintiff's] condition, whatever it may be, equates to a disability within the meaning of the statutory definitions."

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

Denying fees to prevailing defendant under FEHA where the action was "a routine case in which the plaintiff merely failed to achieve success on her claim"

Concluding that attorney's fees inappropriate in part because cause of action was not "obviously contrary to undisputed facts or well established legal principles" specifically precluding recovery for the type of injury alleged

Holding the Christiansburg determination must be made toward the entirety of the action, and not just the FEHA claim

Interrupting counsel's questioning, directing counsel to allow witnesses to finish their answers, and directing counsel to "cut to the chase" in questions did not demonstrate bias

Explaining that prevailing defendants may recover attorney's fees under Cal. Gov. Code § 12965 "only if the plaintiff's lawsuit is deemed unreasonable, frivolous, meritless, or vexatious"

In Robert, the Sixth District found that the trial court's oral findings demonstrated that the court applied the correct standards and concluded that the court's failure to put its findings in writing was not prejudicial and did not itself justify reversal.

Explaining as to section 218.5, subdivision, that "[c]ourts have uniformly recognized that such unilateral fee-shifting statutes ‘reflect a considered legislative judgment that prevailing defendants should not receive fees’ "

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