In our December 26, 2009 post, we reported on the misfortune of the Silverado-Modjeska Recreation & Park District, which was ordered to pay a prevailing developer about $358,000 in attorney’s fees. Well, there is a follow-up to this brewing saga. District, which has an annual budget of $222,304, has appealed the $358,000 fee […]
One Supplemental Fee Order Is Summarily Reversed on Appeal; Another is Dismissed as Moot. Here is a post that only appellate practitioners can love. However, we examine all decisions across the board (and do argue on appeal ourselves, on occasion). So, here you go. Plaintiff appealed a fee award awarding bank more fees
05/11/2010 Presented by: Association Committee Meeting Subsection/Committee: Appellate Courts Program Information: This meeting will explore ways to present fee petitions to obtain successful trial and appellate results; standards of review; statements of decisions and specificity in trial court fee orders; discovery in fee proceedings; and appellate issues encountered in diverse areas such as SLAPP awards,
In our February 27, 2010 post, we provided some highlights from The Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, which was amended some in a January 15, 2010 order. This decision can now be found at 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4546 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010). Pension
Attorney’s Fees, Transportation/Lodging, and Appellate Expenses Appropriate Under 42 U.S.C. § 11607(b)(3). 42 U.S.C. § 11607(b)(3) provides that a court “ordering the return of a child” under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction shall award “necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the petitioner . . . unless
Fourth District, Division 2 Found Focus Was Improperly on Prospective Future Decisions Rather Than on the CEQA Rights Already Vindicated by Plaintiff. In Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo, Case No. E048236 (4th Dist., Div. 2 May 6, 2010) (unpublished), the Fourth District, Division 2 reversed a trial court’s denial of private
Second District, Division 5 Also Rules that Fee Recovery Does Not Have to be Pled and that Civil Code Section 3260.1 Does Not Authorize a Fee Award. We have done some past posts on California’s construction prompt payment statutes, designed to insure that retention payments are not wrongfully withheld by owners or other construction
1: Legal Services Agreement Was Foundation For Both Contract/Tort Claims, Resulting in Substantial Fee Award. In Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Case No. B207567 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 6, 2010) (unpublished), former client sued former law firm for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence (among others) in connection
Title VII Claims Do Not Have To Be Asserted in Federal Case Seeking Only Fees. In Porter v. Winter, Case No. 07-17120 (9th Cir. May 5, 2010) (for publication), the Ninth Circuit determined that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought solely by a prevailing plaintiff to recover attorney’s fees incurred in
Standard of Review Was Determinative in This One. When statutes give trial court discretionary calls on fee requests, appellate courts review such calls under a very deferential standard of review. This deferential standard—abuse of discretion–was determinative in the next case we review. In Ross v. Frank, Case No. B211125 (2d Dist., Div. 1
