Plaintiff was the prevailing party entitled to a mandatory award of court costs under CCP 1032 even though judgment was entered stating that plaintiff take nothing or dismissing her claims, when the judgment is entered pursuant to a settlement that is silent as to costs but under which defendant pays plaintiff a sum in settlement of plaintiff’s claims. Though some of plaintiff’s claims had been adjudicated against her, dismissal of at least two of her claims resulted from a settlement in which defendant paid plaintiff $23,500. By reason of the settlement, plaintiff achieved a net monetary recovery and thus was the prevailing party for purposes of a cost award. As there can be only one prevailing party in an action for purposes of a cost award, only plaintiff was the prevailing party even though defendant prevailed on most of plaintiff’s claims. Chinn v. KMR Property Management (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 175, which held to the contrary, is disapproved.
California Supreme Court (Liu, J.); March 10, 2016; 2016 WL 903944