February 2010

In The News . . . . Natomas Unified School District Has Spent $454,878.03, And Rising, Against Developers, Attorneys, Real Estate Broker, and Appraiser For Claimed Purchase of Price-Inflated Property

In The News

   School District Would Hand the Property Back.      To show you how expensive modern litigation happens to be, take the case of the Natomas Unified School District. (Natomas is one of the remaining undeveloped communities in the northwest Sacramento, CA area.)      A grand jury report in May 2009 alleged that the District paid […]

In The News . . . . Lawyers Having Conflicts With Class Representatives Over Incentive Payments Denied Fees In Entirety in BAR/BRI Settlement

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Ethics, In The News

  Nonconflicted Attorneys Get Award of Fees; Conflicted Attorneys Do Receive Reimbursement of Over $1.2 Million in Expenses.      In our April 26, 2009 post, we reported on Rodriguez v. West Publishing Co., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009), where class representative incentive agreements creating conflicts of interests required reconsideration of fee awards to both

Civil Rights: Appellate Court Affirms Slashed FEHA Prevailing Party Fee Award Where Plaintiff’s Success Limited After Prior Appeal and Attorney Fee Substantiation Was Unreliable

Cases: Civil Rights

  Plaintiff Appeals $500,000-Plus Fee Award, But Gets Nothing Better.      Mnaskanian v. 21st Century Insurance, Case No. B211757 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 11, 2010) (unpublished) shows that both trial and appellate courts will apply lodestar analysis in FEHA fee award situations, discounting for limited success and unreliable attorney fee substantiation when awarding “bottom

Law Of The Case: Prior Appellate Opinion, Never Challenged On Rehearing Or Supreme Court Review, Was Law Of The Case On Fee Determination

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Deadlines

  Mere Disagreement With Prior Appellate Opinion Does Not Impact Law of the Case Doctrine.      In Tennen v. Finstad, Case No. B217765 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 10, 2010) (unpublished), losing litigants on an order denying an attorney’s fees motion brought a prior successful appeal in which the Court of Appeal reversed an order

Sanctions: CCP Section 128.7(b)(3) Sanctions Not Justified Against Represented Party Having No Responsibility For Sanctionable Conduct

Cases: Sanctions

  128.7 Sanctions Sustained Against Attorney Failing to Properly Appeal.      The next sanctions case has a couple of valuable lessons. It is MJB Development Group v. Diamond Escrow, Case No. D053158 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 10, 2010) (unpublished). Lesson #1—a sanctioned attorney must appeal the sanctions award. Although attorney’s client also appealed, this

Homeowner Associations: Interveners In CC&R Interpretive Dispute Are Entitled To Fee Recovery As Prevailing Parties Under Civil Code Section 1354

Cases: Homeowner Associations

  Fourth District, Division 3 Finds No Contractual Basis For Award, But Does Find a Statutory Basis.      In an interesting first impression issue, the Fourth District, Division 3—in Renezeder v. Emerald Bay Community Assn., Case Nos. G040657 & G041353 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 8, 2010) (unpublished)—determined that winning interveners in a CC&R dispute

Retainer Agreements: Diane Karpman Has Some Nice Reminders In February 2010 Edition of the California Bar Journal

Cases: Retainer Agreements

       Diane Karpman, a legal ethics expert, has the following reminders for “tuning up” attorney-client retention agreements: Lawyers should consult the State Bar fee forms on the California State Bar website, because they represent the “gold standard”—tested, blessed and familiar to fee arbitrators. Include a disclaimer of any guarantee, result or successful outcome. Specifically

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Chacon Opinion – Involving San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance – Is Published.

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

       In our January 19, 2010 post, we examined Chacon v. Litke, Case Nos. A122026 & A123889 (1st Dist., Div. 2 published Feb. 8, 2010), which was unpublished at the time. This decision established that the lodestar analysis was the presumptive method for gauging special fee-shifting provisions, including those enacted under governmental ordinances. On

Scroll to Top