The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident case and its proceedings.)
Plaintiff’s Requested Statutory Costs Would Have Been The Same Had The Case Been Brought In Limited Jurisdiction
In addition to the Dorman factors, we urge this court to consider other factors as well, such as the limited costs associated with this litigation. Except for procedures specifically designed to lower litigation costs in limited civil cases, the rules of procedure generally applicable to civil actions also apply to limited civil cases. CCP §90. In other words the majority of the procedures in limited jurisdiction are the same as unlimited jurisdiction.
The general right of the prevailing party to recover their costs is established by CCP §1021, which provides that parties to actions or proceedings are entitled to reimbursement of costs as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. Code of Civil Procedure §1032 provides for the award of costs to prevailing parties, which includes the party with a net monetary recovery. Ms. Hill is the prevailing part and the party with a net monetary recovery. Had the case been brought in limited jurisdiction she would have been entitled to all of he costs and her costs would have been virtually the same as the costs in this case. Accordingly, there is no reason for the court to award Ms. Hill anything other than all of her requested, statutory recoverable costs because she failed to recover more than $25,000.
The discretion provided in CCP § 1033 makes sense if the plaintiff incurs excessive costs that she would not have incurred had she been in limited jurisdiction. For example, if Plaintiff had taken 10 depositions at a cost of $5000 there would be reason to restrict the costs since CCP § 94(b) restricts the number of depositions allowed by the parties to only one per side.
In the current case, however, the costs would have been the same whether the case was in limited or unlimited jurisdiction. With the limited exception of the initial case filing fee, each costs requested by plaintiff would have been the same if this case was brought in limited jurisdiction.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The discretion provided in CCP § 1033 makes sense if the plaintiff incurs excessive costs that she would not have incurred had she been in limited jurisdiction. For example, if Plaintiff had taken 10 depositions at a cost of $5000 there would be reason to restrict the costs since CCP § 94(b) restricts the number of depositions allowed by the parties to only one per side.
In the current case, however, the costs would have been the same whether the case was in limited or unlimited jurisdiction. With the limited exception of the initial case filing fee, each costs requested by plaintiff would have been the same if this case was brought in limited jurisdiction. (See Part 5 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.