How has section 1032 of the California Code of Civil Procedure been interpreted in the context of "prevailing party" or "proper party" language?

[97 Cal.App.3d 108] Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (d), was analyzed in Young v. General Telephone Company (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 177, 142 Cal.Rptr. 57. It was said there that "(i)t is thus apparent that the 1953 amendment, which first adopted the 'prevailing party' language, was a legislative effort to relax the strict rule that no costs were recoverable by a plaintiff who selected the wrong court, and to permit the trial judge to allow costs to a plaintiff in a proper case." (Id. at p. 182, 142 Cal.Rptr. at p. 60.) The discretion exercised by a trial judge in "a proper case" is subject to

Page 562