July 2010

Appeal Sanctions: Law Firm Pays $390,000 In Appellate Monetary Sanctions Relating To Ninth Circuit Appeal In Nicaraguan Banana Dispute With Dow Chemical

Cases: Sanctions

  Appellants’ Attorneys Are Reprimanded or Face 6-Month Suspensions from Ninth Circuit Practice.      Quite a lot of news was generated about a dismissed case brought by some Nicaraguan plaintiffs about Dow Chemical relating to use of DBCP on banana plantations in Nicaragua. Nicaraguan plaintiffs appealed, with an appointed special master finding that monetary sanctions

Section 1717: Where Results Are Mixed …. Lots Of Prevailing Party Discretion

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fourth District, Division 3 Emphatically Makes the Point.      Roden v. Amerisourcebergen Corp., Case No. G041990 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 8, 2010) (certified for publication) involved a plaintiff who was disappointed in being denied an award of attorney’s fees under a supplemental executive retirement plan (with ERISA implications) after prevailing on some aspects of

Costs: Second District, Division 7 Seems To Part Company With Fourth District, Division 3 Over Procedure For Recovering Non-statutory Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Fees as Damages

  Division 7 Seems To Favor Trial Proof Method Over Post-Judgment Costs Hearing Approach in Unpublished Decision.      On June 23, 2010, we reported on Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. Mariners Mile Gateway, LLC, __ Cal.App.4th __, 2010 WL 2473831 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 21, 2010), where a panel of the Fourth District, Division 3

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Losing Plaintiff In Unsuccessful Overtime/Meal Break Superior Court Action Required To Pay Attorney’s Fees Of $28,731.25 To Employer

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District, Division Two Finds Fee Motion Timely and Fee Award Reasonable in Amount.      In Cun v. Café Tiramisu, Case No. A124985 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 7, 2010) (unpublished), plaintiff ex-employee lost a superior court FLSA action following a de novo Labor Commissioner hearing in which she claimed to have not been paid

Scroll to Top