Weck v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District

California Court of Appeal Dec 22, 1948 No. Civ. 16424Published

Before: Shinn

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that under Rule 26(c), multiple prevailing parties in consolidated actions are each entitled to recover up to $100 for the cost of briefs, and that the trial court lacks authority to apportion costs or treat separate appellants as a single party.

Issues

Whether the $100 limit on the cost of briefs under Rule 26(c) applies to the aggregate of all prevailing parties or to each party individually.
Whether consolidation of actions for trial converts separate appellants into a single party for the purpose of taxing costs on appeal.
Whether the cost of petitions for rehearing and hearing in the Supreme Court are recoverable as costs of briefs.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the expense of briefs may not exceed $100 to any one party. If several parties to an appeal file separate briefs and each party is awarded costs, the rule permits each to recover the expense of his briefs in an amount not to exceed $100.”

“The consolidation was only for the purpose of saving time and expense and did not convert the separate actions into a single action for any other purpose.”

“The expense of preparation of briefs under the rules includes the preparation of petitions for rehearing and hearing in the Supreme Court.”

SHINN, P. J.

This is an appeal by Southern Pacific Company and Southern Pacific Railroad Company from an order, and part of a judgment, denying their motion to strike out cost bills and retax costs after the decision of a former appeal

(Weck

Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist.,

80 Cal.App.2d 182 [181 P.2d 935]). Appellants herein were joined with others as defendants in nine separate actions to recover damages for injury to property occasioned by flood waters alleged to have been diverted from a natural channel. The actions were consolidated for trial, directed verdicts were rendered in favor of all defendants, and the plaintiffs appealed from the ensuing judgments. Separate verdicts and judg

[280]

ments were rendered in each of the nine cases and separate notices of appeal were given. Pursuant to stipulation, clerk’s transcripts in each of the eases were consolidated by reference and a consolidated settled transcript was used instead of separate transcripts. On their appeals, the nine plaintiffs jointly filed a single set of briefs. The judgments were affirmed as to all defendants other than the two railroad companies, and as to them were reversed. The plaintiffs filed a single petition for a rehearing in the District Court of Appeal, which was denied, and a single petition to the Supreme Court for a hearing, specifying particularly their appeals from the judgments in favor of the defendants other than the railroad companies. After the denial of this petition they filed cost bills in each of the nine cases, claiming in each case one-ninth of the total cost of filing their briefs on appeal, consisting of $598.01 as the cost of preparing briefs, $85.90 the cost of the petition for rehearing, $152.56 the cost of petition for hearing in the Supreme Court, or a total of $836.47. By the motions to tax costs appellants herein sought to strike out the items of cost of printing the petitions for rehearing and hearing in the Supreme Court upon the ground that they were improper charges, and sought to limit the total cost of printing briefs to $100, thus reducing the amounts for these items to $11.11 in each of the nine cases. They appeal from an order denying their motions in these particulars.

Weck v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District

AI Brief

SHINN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief