July 2013

In The News . . . . Virginia Attorney Pays $544,000 Facebook Discovery Fee Sanction; Toronto Attorney Left Ferrari In Flood Path To Get To Court Hearing; Ex-Sidley Austin Partner Fesses Up To Bogus $69,000 Cab Reimbursement Expense; McGeorge Law School En

In The News

       We would like to thank Martha Neil and Molly McDonough for some interesting posts on The ABA Journal’s online publication during July 9-11, 2013. Virginia Lawyer Fee Sanction Payment.      A Virginia attorney, facing ethics violations, paid his $544,000 share of a $722,000 legal fee award for advice relating to deactivation of Facebook […]

Costs/Specific Fee Shifting Statutes: Plaintiff Winning Challenge To Property Assessment On Narrow Grounds Not Entitled to Fees Under Specific Revenue & Taxation Code Sections

Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Also, Plaintiff Cannot Receive Trial Expenses As Costs Based on Being Awarded Costs on Appeal from An Earlier Appeal.      Plaintiff property owner, in a prior published decision, obtained a trial court judgment affirmed on appeal in connection with a determination that the Nevada County Assessment Appeals Board failed to apply the correct burden

Appealability/Prevailing Party: Failure To Include Answer To Complaint And Opposition To Fee Motion Presented Inadequate Appellate Record To Review Fee Challenges

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Also, Plaintiff Only Obtained a “Mixed” Win Rather Than An “Unqualified” One.      In Chan v. Lo, Case No. B239783 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 9, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained some relief (with the court determining she owed less than the face amount of a promissory note), but still was found to owe note

Appealability/Deadlines: Appellant Failed To Preserve Costs Challenges By Failing to Timely File From Original Judgment

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Deadlines

  Subsequent Judgment Was Not Materially Substantial So As To Trigger New Appeal Time Commencement.      Darden Painting, Inc. v. Glass Architects, Case No. A132846 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 9, 2013) (unpublished) is a case where a litigant challenging certain costs ruling was pretty much shut out on procedural grounds–failure to timely appeal. What

Section 998: Lack Of Acceptance Language Was Fatal To 998 Offer Validity

Cases: Section 998

  Second District, Division 5 Follows Puerta.      Although not involving attorney’s fees, we report that the Second District, Division 5 in Boeken v. Philip Morris USA Inc., Case No. B236875 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 9, 2013) (partially published) did follow Puerta v. Torres, 195 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1272 (2011), a Fourth District, Division 3

Costs/Lodestar/Multiplier/Section 998: $989,258 Plaintiff Fee Award Affirmed Under Bane Act

Cases: Costs, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Section 998

  Additional Costs Awards for Experts and Trial Technology Also Sustained.      In Bender v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B236294 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 9, 2013) (published), plaintiff won an excessive police force Bane Act suit, with the Bane Act containing a fee-shifting clause. The lower court also awarded $989,258 to plaintiff

Bankruptcy/Fee Clause Interpretation: Broadly Worded Fees Clause Rescues The Day For Winning Creditor

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

CCP § 1021, Not Civil Code § 1717, Afforded Relief.     In re Charalambous (Hamilton v. Charalambous), BAP No. CC-13-1042-PDKi (BAP 9th Cir. Mem. Decision July 3, 2013) (unpublished) is an illustration of how one needs to carefully pick the basis for fee entitlement. Although Civil Code section 1717 is an attractive first impulse ground,

In the News . . . . 2013 Attorney Hourly rates Are On The Rise, But Clients Are Getting Discounts And Billing/Collection Differential Has Increased

Rates

       Co-contributors Marc and Mike thank Mike’s father-in-law Tom Basehart for sharing an interesting April 10, 2013 article from The Wall Street Journal (authored by Jennifer Smith) which provides some insights into rising attorney billing rates and client reactions to such a trend.      Here are the highlights from this article:      *”Star” partners

Allocation/Lodestar/Reasonableness Of Fees: Former Employee Losing Wage/Hour Claims Hit With $150,519.36 Adverse Fee Award

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Hourly Rates by Defense Were Reasonable; No Apportionment Required.      Plaintiff, a former employee, sued defendant former employer for unpaid commissions, vacation time, and unreimbursed expenses, requesting an award of attorney’s fees upon prevailing under Labor Code sections 218.5 and 218.6 (wage/hour fee-shifting provisions). Plaintiff brought four causes of action, one of which was

Scroll to Top