Alfaro v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (In re Laosd Asbestos Cases)
236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 490
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Plaintiff Elizabeth Alfaro sued multiple defendants, including Colgate-Palmolive, claiming talcum powder exposure caused her mesothelioma; only Colgate and Imerys proceeded to trial.
- Colgate served a Code of Civil Procedure § 998 offer before summary judgment proposing mutual waiver of costs; Alfaro did not accept.
- After a three-week trial the jury found Colgate not liable for exposure; Colgate sought $311,543.86 in costs (including expert fees under § 998).
- The trial court denied all costs, citing Alfaro's terminal illness, limited finances, and concerns of fairness/due process, and declined to decide whether Colgate's § 998 offer was made in good faith.
- Colgate appealed the denial of costs; the appellate court reviewed whether the trial court properly considered Alfaro's ability to pay and whether it exercised discretion on the § 998 issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may deny prevailing-party costs under § 1032/§ 1033.5 based on losing party's inability to pay | Court may consider inability to pay and deny costs to protect access to courts and avoid disproportionate penalties | Sections 1032/1033.5 give prevailing party a right to recover allowable costs; court may not graft an inability-to-pay exception onto statute | Reversed: court may not deny statutory costs under §§ 1032/1033.5 solely based on losing party's finances; remand to determine which claimed costs are reasonable and necessary |
| Whether expert witness fees are recoverable under § 998 and whether trial court may consider inability to pay in awarding them | Ability to pay is relevant; trial court properly used it to deny § 998 fees | Court must determine if § 998 offer was reasonable and in good faith and if expert fees were reasonably necessary before factoring inability to pay | Reversed in part: trial court abused discretion by failing to decide good-faith and reasonableness of the § 998 offer and by not determining reasonable expert fees; remand for those findings (court may consider ability to pay among other factors) |
| Whether trial court failed to assess reasonableness/necessity of claimed costs under § 1033.5 | (Alfaro initially challenged reasonableness but later withdrew some objections) | Colgate provided receipts and invoices showing costs were reasonably necessary | Trial court did not rule on specific cost reasonableness; remand for court to assess which costs are allowable, reasonable, and necessary under § 1033.5 |
| Standard of review for these determinations | N/A | Legal questions reviewed de novo; discretionary determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion | Whether ability-to-pay can be considered under § 1032/1033.5 is a legal question (de novo); trial court's discretion under § 998 should be exercised and reviewed for abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Anderson, 72 Cal.App.4th 111 (appellate court held trial court cannot deny prevailing-party costs under § 1032/§ 1033.5 based on losing party's financial condition)
- Santantonio v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 25 Cal.App.4th 102 (trial court may consider ability to pay in exercising discretion under § 998 offers to compromise)
- Martin v. Superior Court, 176 Cal. 289 (recognizes court's inherent power to waive fees/costs in limited circumstances such as protecting access to courts)
- Garcia v. Santana, 174 Cal.App.4th 464 (court may consider losing party's financial circumstances in determining reasonable attorney fees where statute requires reasonableness)
- Adams v. Ford Motor Co., 199 Cal.App.4th 1475 (trial court best positioned to determine whether expert fees were reasonably necessary under § 998; appellate reversal only for abuse or failure to exercise discretion)