Defendant Leonard Umina’s Motion to Strike Costs.
Leonard Umina filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff/cross-defendant Lumina. On November 5, 2019 the court issued an OSC Re: why the cross-complaint should not be dismissed for failure to bring it to trial or dismiss the case. The notice was served by mail on cross-complainant on November 5, 2019. Cross-Complainant filed to appear at the hearing on December 2, 2019 and the cross-complaint was dismissed.
On January 9, 2020 plaintiff/cross-defendant filed a memorandum of costs seeking to recover $332.47.
Cross-Complainant moves to strike all costs claimed. Cross-Defendant opposes the motion. Cross-Complainant replied to the opposition.
Prevailing Party Entitled to Award of Costs
Cross-Complainant contends that costs can not be awarded to a cross-defendant where the cross-complaint is dismissed, because the cross-defendant is not a prevailing party unless there is a monetary award. The argument is entirely without merit.
“The right to r
Hearing Date
June 12, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendant Leonard Umina’s Motion to Strike Costs.
Leonard Umina filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff/cross-defendant Lumina. On November 5, 2019 the court issued an OSC Re: why the cross-complaint should not be dismissed for failure to bring it to trial or dismiss the case. The notice was served by mail on cross-complainant on November 5, 2019. Cross-Complainant filed to appear at the hearing on December 2, 2019 and the cross-complaint was dismissed.
On January 9, 2020 plaintiff/cross-defendant filed a memorandum of costs seeking to recover $332.47.
Cross-Complainant moves to strike all costs claimed. Cross-Defendant opposes the motion. Cross-Complainant replied to the opposition.
Prevailing Party Entitled to Award of Costs
Cross-Complainant contends that costs can not be awarded to a cross-defendant where the cross-complaint is dismissed, because the cross-defendant is not a prevailing party unless there is a monetary award. The argument is entirely without merit.
“The right to r