During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Costs

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Moreno v. Bassi (2021)

Gov. Code 12965(b) is an exception to the normal cost provisions of CCP 1032.  Hence, when, as in this case, the plaintiff loses her FEHA claims but prevails on other claims, she is not entitled to recover costs incurred solely in relation to the FEHA claims.  Also, since the total recovery in this case was less than the amount that… Read More

City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com, L.P. (2021)

Under Fed. R. App. 39(a), the Court of Appeals determines which party is the prevailing party entitled to an award of costs on appeal, and it may, in its discretion, order that the prevailing party recover only some of the normally awardable costs on appeal.  Under Fed. R. App. 39(e), costs for preparing and transmitting the record and appellate transcripts… Read More

Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc. (2020)

Disagreeing with Plancich v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 308, this decision holds that Labor Code 218.5 and 1194 prescribe one-way fee and cost awards in employee suits for minimum wage and overtime pay, precluding the application of CCP 1032 and CCP 998, which only changes the normal prevailing party determination under CCP 1032.  An employer may recover… Read More

Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc. (2020)

In this suit for unpaid wages, plaintiff successfully opposed defendant's motion to transfer the case to the court's limited jurisdiction division, but then failed to recover damages exceeding the limited jurisdiction's maximum.  CCP 1033 provides that when this occurs,, the court may deny the plaintiff costs, including attorney fees. Without deciding whether the fee-shifting provisions of various Labor Code sections… Read More

Auburn Woods I Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2020)

State Farm's 998 offer was valid and enforceable to shift costs in this case.  The signature block contained a space for signature by the attorney for the HOA, which was sufficient to identify the party in the signature line for acceptance.  Also, the 998 offer's requirement of signature on a settlement agreement releasing all claims " arising from, relating or… Read More

MES Investments, LLC v. Dadson Washer Service, Inc. (2020)

Under Cal. Rules of Court 3.1700, 3.1702, the time to file a memorandum of costs and a motion for attorney fees runs from service of notice of entry of judgment.  That the prevailing party had actual knowledge of entry of judgment earlier is irrelevant.  It is service of notice of entry, not actual knowledge that starts the time running.  Likewise,… Read More

Quiles v. Parent

by Jan T. Chilton |

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees to a prevailing plaintiff in an individual FLSA retaliation claim, properly apportioning total fees among several plaintiffs, and attributing to this prevailing plaintiff only those fees reasonably incurred in prosecuting her individual claims. Read More

LAOSD Asbestos Cases (Alfaro v. Colgate Palmolive Co.)

by Jan T. Chilton |

A trial court has no discretion to deny a prevailing party ordinary court costs on the ground that the losing party lacks the financial ability to pay those costs, and may deny or reduce expert witness fees awardable under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 only upon making specific statutory findings. Read More