Had Requested $778,535, But Court Rejected the Request. As reported by Ryan Abbott in an October 5, 2012 post at Courthouse News Service, Winston Strawn attorney Ernest Fleischer saved shareholders of defunct S&L Benj. Franklin Federal Savings and Loan Association a huge amount of taxes–cutting a $1.2 billion tax IRS claim down to […]
No Need For Independent Fee Expert Scrutiny, Because Trial Judge Can Do It. Here is an interesting reasonableness of fees challenge made on appeal to our local Santa Ana appellate court in Yeskin v. Pacific Mercantile Bank, Case No. G045361 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 5, 2012) (unpublished), authored by Presiding Justice O’Leary
In Siciliano v. Singh, Case Nos. E052352/E053582 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 5, 2012) (unpublished), one attorney won quantum meruit fees based on a voided contingency fee agreement, with both client and attorney seeking recovery of attorney’s fees and costs (even though, ultimately, attorney did beat out–barely–a CCP § 998 offer once routine
Acritas Survey on 2011 General Counsel Reasons for Dropping Outside Counsel Reports Results. Debra Cassens Weiss, in an October 2, 2012 post at the ABA Journal, informs us that Acritas, a UK-based market research firm, conducted a phone survey of a couple thousand general counsel in about 45 countries, asking them about terminating
Fees Were Less Than Requested Based on Defendants’ Excessive Litigation Style, But Were Justified Because Plaintiff Did Everything Possible Not To Pay Under the Settlement. Civil Code section 1717 fee proceedings are equitable in nature. Don’t think for one moment that trial judges presiding over fee motions do not factor in each side’s
$56,100 Fee Award Affirmed In Dispute Over $10,171.26 Receivable Based on Fees Clause in Parties’ Contract. Food Safety Net Services v. Eco Safe Systems, USA, Inc., Case No. B231667 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 4, 2012) (published) goes to show you how even minor disputes can produce exponentially greater fee awards for the
Marriage of De Monbrun, Case No. B236130 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 3, 2012) (unpublished) involved a husband’s challenge to a $10,000 sanction awarded to wife under Family Code section 271. Husband did well to appeal, gaining a reversal on appeal. Section 271 is not meant to incorporate the “English rule” into
Soni v. CH&I Technologies, Inc., Case No. B235130 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 3, 2012) (unpublished) was a very contested donnybrook between an attorney and his former client, in which the president was also sued on the theory he was personally liable under the retainer agreement. Attorney won against former client corporation, garnering
Claim Is Equitable in Nature, Not Triggering Section 1717 Exposure. In Gibson v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Case No. A133721 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 3, 2012) (unpublished), a lower court awarded attorney’s fees to an individual defendant on a cancellation of instrument claim based on the notion that it was an
Costs Award Affirmed, With Appearance Fee In Motion to Quash Proceeding Properly Awarded. Plaintiffs were bummed when the lower court awarded $23,750.12 in costs to some defendants winning a motion to quash based on lack of personal jurisdiction. They appealed, mainly arguing that defendants exceeded the 15 day deadline for filing a costs
