The Math: Total Bill = $783K, Attorney’s Fees = $674K, Experts = $108K, Depositions and Transcripts = $40K, Fee Recovery = $0. Lydia Lopez, a former Sheriff’s Department Clerk, lost a harassment suit against the County of Stanislaus. Merrill Balassone reports in the Sacramento Bee that Ms. Lopez’ attorney Jeffery Hubbins claims the County […]
Again Illustrating that Attorney’s Fees are the Tail that Wags the Litigation Dog . . . Under the heading, “Pleasanton reaches settlement over housing cap lawsuit”, Robert Jordan reports in the Contra Costa Times that Pleasanton has reached a tentative settlement that will, if finalized and approved, obligate Pleasanton to pay $1.9M in attorney’s
Fourth District, Division 3 Affirms Award Under B&P Code Section 7160, Finding No Apportionment Was Necessary. Under our category “Unlicensed Contractors,” we have looked at a number of decisions where unlicensed contractors do not suffer well at any level, including when it comes to assessment of attorney’s fees case. The next case is no
Fourth District, Division 3 Affirms a Lower Fee Request Based Upon Lack of Clarity. This next case, from our local Fourth District, Division 3 appellate court, reinforces a lesson that should be clear from now—if you are a fee claimant, provide the court a roadmap on why you should get the best (and highest)
No Fees Under SLAPP or Lanham Act Fee Shifting Provisions. Well, everyone knows about James “Jim” Brown, maybe the best professional football running back of all time. In the next case, Jim Brown dodged fee exposure under the Lanham Act and under California’s SLAPP statute. He brought a false exploitation of image
Fourth District, Division 1 So Rules, Assuming 998 Offers Are Valid in a Certified Class Situation. Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co., Case No. D054369 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 15, 2010) (certified for publication) is an interesting decision where significant fees were awarded in a class action involving a California consumer-shifting fee statute. However,
Second District, Division One Departs Company From Contrary Rutter Group Commentary. In People ex rel. City of Santa Monica v. Gabriel, Case No. B214828 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 14, 2010) (certified for publication), a panel of the Second District departed from some Rutter Group treatise commentary, deciding that Business and Professions Code section
Second District, Division 2 Finds No Higher Award is Warranted. In Knik v. Marriott International, Inc., Case No. B220529 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 14, 2010) (unpublished), plaintiff’s attorneys in a wage/hour class action obtained an award of $93,161 in attorney’s fees in a case where the gross settlement amount was $700,000. They wanted
Fourth District, Division One Reinforces that Consumer Statutes Are Not a Blank Attorney’s Fees Check. This next one is a lemon law case, arising under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act with a mandatory fee-shifting provision. However, that fee-shifting statute only allows recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party (Civ. Code, § 1794(d);
Second District, Division 8 So Rules. KL Trading Co. v. Dahan, Case No. B215182 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 14, 2010) (unpublished) is a very pragmatic decision in the RFA fee shifting area. The problem is that plaintiff requested $ 56,956.25 in fees for proving certain RFAs not admitted in responses, despite any specific
