Both Sides Will Bear Their Own Fees and Costs. On January 28, 2013, we reported on a trial scheduled to begin between the Tustin Unified School District and City of Tustin over construction issues relating to two schools. We can now update, because The Orange County Reporter has informed everyone on January 30 […]
Justice Ikola, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, faced an interesting dissolution proceeding in Marriage of Turner, Case No. G045973 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 28, 2013) (unpublished). After 16 years of marriage, wife applied for child/spousal support of at least $40,000 per month (yes, what you see is correct) in a
Clause Language and Negotiation of Settlement Demonstrated Prevailing Parties Were Third Party Beneficiaries In Homeport Ins. Services, Inc. v. Lundy, Case No. B238296 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 28, 2013) (unpublished), an injured longshoreman settled a worker’s compensation claim against SSA (terminal associated entities) and a personal injury action against City of Long
Aegis Medical Systems, Inc. v. Zitto, Case No. A134907 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 28, 2013) (unpublished) was not a hard one to decide at either or the appellate court level, apparently. Although plaintiff did prevail on a drug treatment “underground regulation” issue, the problem was that plaintiff had a huge financial incentive
Trial Slated to Begin Today. As reported by Elysse James in a January 28, 2013 article in The Orange County Register, both sides in a feud slated to begin trial today have spent a substantial amount each in a dispute involving claims over construction on Heritage School and Tustin High School. According to
She Was Not Impecunious, And Former Husband Looked To Be Candid–Fee Awards Sustained. In re Marriage of Hardiman, Case No. A133266 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 25, 2013) (unpublished) is an interesting dissolution case pitting well healed ex-spouses, mainly due to Genetech/Roche stock options that actually came to roost and helped both sides.
$372,454 In Attorney’s Fees Awarded To Avenida Under Settlement. As reported by Fred Swegles in a January 25, 2013 article in The Orange County Register, Avenida San Juan Partnership reached a settlement under which San Clemente must resume processing a development application rejected in 2006 by city council members for a project on
Plaintiff in Mariani v. Harbor Pointe Owners’ Assn., Case No. A130360 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 24, 2013) (unpublished) was miffed at a $36,151 fee award under Civil Code section 1354 after losing a homeowner voting controversy. Homeowner appealed, arguing that the HOA was not enforcing CC&Rs, but only a promise not in
Although the decision actually involves interesting issues about the constitutionality of legislative enactments relating to redevelopment agencies, Cal. Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos, Case No. C064907 (3d Dist. Jan. 24, 2013) (published) did hold that a $315,622.74 fee recovery under California’s private attorney general statute had to be reversed. Reason? The financial burden element
No “Complete” Frivolousness Shown. Defendant losing a SLAPP motion was hit with attorney’s fees of $19,500 for filing a completely frivolous proceeding in Hayes v. Hutchison, Case No. B237556 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 24, 2013) (unpublished). A frivolous defense motion can be the subject of fee recovery in the SLAPP area under
