Fourth District, Division 3 Holds that Choice-of-Law Clause Drives Fee Result. Who says that our California intermediate appellate courts do not face gnarly issues even in a relatively routine breach-of-contract dispute. Not us. The next one had some wild issues, not to mention a Swiss choice-of-law clause—meaning that the English Rule applied to the […]
Second District, Division 5 Also Finds Discovery Referee, Mediation, and Computerized Document Control/Exhibit Costs Can Be Discretionarily Awarded. In Henderson v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B209871 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 29, 2009) (unpublished), defendant sheriff prevailed after the trial court directed a verdict on certain claims in a civil rights excessive
Fourth District, Division 3 Reaffirms the Principle in Recent Unpublished Opinion. Day to day, our intermediate appellate courts confront controversies involving application of Civil Code section 1717, the statutory provision that allows for enforcement of contractual fees clauses in favor of prevailing parties. However, the wording of the fees clauses themselves, for solely contractual
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Section 1717 Cannot Be “Bootstrapped” Into Fee Entitlement For Breach of Contract With No Fees Provision. Civil Code section 1717 focuses on mutuality of remedy for enforcement of contractual attorney’s fees clauses. However, it is not a statutory dragnet to enforce an oral settlement with no fees clause or
First District, Division 1 Makes the Point for Specific Substantiation in Recent Unpublished Decision. Probate law requires more specific substantiation to justify trust payments of attorney’s fees than is required in civil litigation—although our recent posts have still lobbied that time sheets and detailed breakdowns are advisable no matter what the context. The need
Sharon Stone Inadvertently Got Her Wish In Fee Dispute Lawsuit With Former Attorney. In case you do not know it, sealing court records is not the norm and takes an exceptional showing for most civil cases. The standards are stringent and set forth in California Rules of Court, rules 2.550, 2.551, and 8.160. However,
Ninth Circuit Apparently Agrees, Also. We would like to thank Hon. Lawrence C. Waddington (Ret.), former Los Angeles County Superior Court judge who is now a neutral with JAMS, for contributing an April 21, 2009 post on enBanc, the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s blog, about a recent Second Circuit decision that has fee
Montrose Chemical Defense: Is An Associate Worth $450 An Hour? Latham & Watkins, a high-powered, national law firm based out of Los Angeles, has been defending Montrose Chemical Corp. in a toxic tort case, with Montrose being insured by Century Indemnity Co. L&W and the insurer have apparently been locked in a nasty battle
Ninth Circuit Requires Reexamination of Fee Denial to Objector’s Counsel and Fee Award to Class Counsel. For the plaintiff class action practitioners out there which follow our blog, the next decision is must reading. Not only does it highlight the fiduciary and ethical duties involved in the process, but counsels that incentive agreements should
Second District, Division 3 So Holds in Unpublished Decision on a Novel Issue. This next decision, although unpublished, maybe should be. It is the first decision that we have seen establishing that defendants have the deadlines available for purposes of striking or taxing costs to challenge attorney’s fees and costs awarded as a condition
