Charton v. Harkey
Annotate this CaseIt was undisputed defendant-respondent Diane Harkey met Code of Civil Procedure section 1032’s definition of a prevailing party. Plaintiffs-appellants however, contended the trial court erred in awarding Harkey her costs because she was united in interest and shared costs with other defendants who did not satisfy the statutory definition. In support, Plaintiffs relied on cases applying the so-called unity of interest exception, which provided a trial court with discretion to deny prevailing party status to a defendant who otherwise would be entitled to recover costs as a matter of right when that defendant is united in interest with, and asserted the same defenses in the same answer as, other defendants who did not prevail and are not entitled to recover their costs. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that these cases were no longer controlling, and therefore affirmed the trial court’s determination Harkey was a prevailing party entitled to recover costs as a matter of right.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.