1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Cal.Rptr.3d
  4. 29 Cal.Rptr.3d
  5. 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 306 (2005)
 

ACOSTA v. SI CORP.

No. B176299.

29 Cal.Rptr.3d 306 (2005)

129 Cal.App.4th 1370

Rogelio ACOSTA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SI CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent.

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four.

Review Denied September 28, 2005.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Lee A. Freeman & Associates, Lee A. Freeman and Lawrence Freeman for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, Richard DeNatale, San Francisco, Jon L. Rewinski, Gary Ostrick, Jilana L. Miller; Murchinson & Cumming and Friedrich W. Seitz, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent.

EPSTEIN, P.J.

Plaintiffs in a construction defect case appeal from a cost bill after a defense verdict. They argue the memorandum of costs should have been stricken because defendant SI Corporation (SI) did not apportion its costs among the plaintiffs although their claims were separate, rather than joint. We conclude SI was entitled to file a single costs memorandum and was not required to apportion costs among the

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases