Results of the Audit Are Due Next Month. As reported by Jeff Overley in his article “Newport to examine its rising legal costs” in the May 30, 2010 edition of The Orange County Register, the City of Newport Beach has decided to audit its litigation costs and fees. In the past decade, annual […]
Second District, Division 3 Also Finds 998 Fee Waiver In Not Illegal under California’s Lemon Law. The next case, involving the interplay between Code of Civil Procedure section 998 pretrial offers and California consumer/civil fee shifting statutes, basically holds plaintiff to the bargain reached when he accepted the 998 offer made by defendants.
Florida Politics: BP Petroleum Spill/AG Contingency Lawyer Cap. We know we would like this one, when the article begins this way: “Nobody likes attorneys until they need one, and then they want the smartest, orneriest, hardest-line lawyer they can get.” Well, the crimp in this for the Florida attorney general is recent legislation
Fees Were Appropriate By Analogy to Similar Fee Shifting Provision of the Copyright Act. In 2003, Congress passed CAN-SPAM Act, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act. Now, a United States District Magistrate Judge has awarded defendant attorney’s fees of over $800,000 under a fee shifting/sanctions provision of the CAN-SPAM Act.
Ninth Circuit So Holds in 2-1 Decision, Drawing a Sharp Dissent. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) has a safe harbor by which a party may deflect exposure if it timely withdraws claims identified by the opponent within 21 days after service of the safe harbor request. At issue before the Ninth Circuit was
First District, Division Five Decision is a Law Professor’s Dream on Judgment Enforcement/Acknowledgment Issues. By now you know (if you have followed our blog or will soon know) that defendant winners of SLAPP motions are entitled to a mandatory award of reasonable attorney’s fees. See our category “SLAPP” to see other catalogued decisions on
Lower Court Erred in Failing to Find Fee Entitlement, to Determine Prevailing Party Status, or to Make Any Apportionments in Summarily Denying Diverse Defense Fee Requests. Trial courts do have a duty to examine fee entitlement, to determine prevailing party status, and to make any apportionments when examining diverse fee requests by different defendants.
Second District, Division 3 Agrees that Arbitration Premature Until Conflict Exists. Here is a Cumis arbitration case that should be of interest to insurance practitioners. In Savvy Property Mgt. v. United National Ins. Co., Case No. B214549 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 24, 2010) (unpublished), defendants in a tenant uninhabitability suit tendered defense
Trial Court Appropriately Apportioned Out Fee Work Unrelated to Statutory Injunctive Relief Claim. Generally, no award of attorney’s fees is available in an invasion of privacy action. However, in a statutory action for injunctive relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(i) (a statutory harassment/violence statute), the prevailing party may be awarded court costs
Second District, Division 8 Reverses $45,728.75 Fee Award Against Los Angeles Metropolitan Medical Center, But Remands For Bad Faith Determination. Business and Professions Code section 809.9, a specialized fee shifting provision, provides that in any suit brought to challenge an action taken or a restriction imposed which must be reported to the California Medical
