Acosta

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 plaintiffs. The trial court did not err in awarding costs to SI as prevailing party. Plaintiffs also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the cost award. Because the record does not show that the trial court engaged in the itemized review required, and in fact indicated that it did not, we reverse the award and remand so that an itemized review may be made.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

This appeal arises from two consolidated construction defect actions involving 101 homes located in the California Marquis tract in Palmdale. (Acosta et al. v. Kaufman & Broad (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 1997, No. SC046582); Alvarez et al. v. Kaufman & Broad (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 1997, No. SC048043).) The houses were constructed by Kaufman & Broad. The same attorney…