Also, Co-Contributor Marc Wins 3-Day Jury Trial. U.S. Navy Sonar Whale Settlement. In our September 16, 2008 post, we reported on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in National Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) v. Winter, where Irell & Manella was awarded $437,584.24 in fees in the dispute to protect whales from U.S. Navy sonar use […]
Second District, Division 4 So Rules in Unpublished Decision. Apportionment of attorney’s fees, as between covered and uncovered claims, is a discretionary call, as the next decision demonstrates. Hur v. Lee, Case No. B210502 c/w BC361921 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 9, 2009) (unpublished) involved a sushi restaurant seller and his brokers, who
Sixth District Affirms Fee Denial by Lower Court. As we have stated before, the first step in seeking fee recovery in California state courts is to find a firm fee “entitlement anchor,” either a contract or statute conferring the ability for a litigant to recoup attorney’s fees. In the next case, there was a
State Bar’s Standing Committee Issues Formal Opinion Confirming Propriety of these Settlements. Formal Opinion No. 2009-176 of the State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct has concluded that (a) a lawyer does not violate any ethical obligation by recommending or conveying a fee-waiver settlement offer in a given case, and (2) a
Ninth Circuit So Holds in Alaska Case. Although we generally limit ourselves to California cases, we do a short report on Disability Law Center of Alaska, Inc. v. Anchorage School Dist., Case No. 08-35057 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2009) (for publication) because of its potential importance in future California cases. There, plaintiff—an Alaskan
Presiding Justice Sills Sustains Fee Awards on Behalf of 3-0 Panel. If one is prone to read lots of appellate opinions (as we are), distinctive styles come through by various appellate justices authoring the cases assigned to them. That happens to be the case in the next decision we review—Presiding Justice Sills, the author,
Panel Quotes From Fourth District, Division 3 Colleagues in the Process. Who says appellate justices don’t read and admire the prose from fellow colleagues in the other state Courts of Appeal? Not us, as the next case demonstrates. Marriage of Silverman, Case No. B208172 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 8, 2009) (unpublished) involved
Second District, Division 7 Overturns Sanctions Where Merits Hearing Was Heard 19 Days Into 21-Day Safe Harbor Period. Here is a good one for all of you Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 fans! The lesson from Li v. Majestic Industry Hills, LLC, Case No. B208404 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 8, 2009)
City Council’s Fee Request May Impede Settlement over Audit Power Dispute. City of Los Angeles and the City Controller have been locked in a lawsuit battle over whether the controller’s office can audit the City’s workers’ compensation program. Early on in the lawsuit, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark V. Mooney issued a
It Happened on September 4, 2009. To our loyal readers, happy upcoming Labor Day. Hope everyone gets some rest and enjoys the break. In our August 22, 2009 post, we reviewed Cabral v. Martins, an unpublished decision by the First District, Division 4 that affirmed a $58,400 fee award to three sets of
