January 2014

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissing Hot Balloon Dispute Not Liable For CCP § 1021.5 Requested Fees Of Over $337,000 To Defendant Property Owners

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Private, Not Public, Interest Dispute Involved Only.      Okay, hot balloon enthusiasts, this next case is for you.      In JCM Farming, Inc. v. Fantasy Balloon Flights, Case No. G048938 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 24, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff owned a farming operation/orchard in Riverside County and sued certain hot balloon operating defendants (including […]

Family Law: Attorney’s Fees Award To Wife On Needs-Basis Affirmed, As Well As 271 Sanctions Against Wife For Appellate Writ Petition

Cases: Family Law

  This One Was a True Marital Imbroglio—Doesn’t Look Like Anyone “Won.”      Marriage of Aitchison, Case No. A134450 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 24, 2014) (unpublished), is a monument to the fees and costs that can be spent in a volatile dissolution matter. Here is the beginning of this opinion: “‘[T]he parties appear in

Estoppel/Fee Clause Interpretation: Winning Subcontractor In Contractual Litigation Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Where Contract Clause Only Applied To Arbitration

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Contract Crystal Clear, Meaning $172,850.02 Fee Award Went POOF!      This one had to hurt.      In Ponce v. Philco Construction, Inc., Case No. G049097 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 21, 2014) (unpublished), contractor Philco subcontracted work out on a Moreno Valley auto service store to subcontractor Ponce, who was not paid for all

Family Law: Trial Court Erroneously Denied Needs-Based Fees Request Where Litigant Did File Comparable Declaration With Responsive Information Rather Than Judicial Council Form FL-319

Cases: Family Law

  Substance Over Form Prevailed in this One.      Marriage of Sharples, Case No. E056941 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 22, 2014) (published) is a case where a lower court denied a wife’s needs-based request for provisional attorney’s fees and costs (with husband having a definably bigger cash flow/asset advantage) because she did not file

Allocation: Trial Court’s 42% Apportionment Of Fee Recovery Was Legally Erroneous Where No Clear Division Between Covered Unpaid Wage Versus Noncovered Tort Claims Apparent In Lower Court Ruling

Cases: Allocation

  Matter Remanded for New Apportionment.      In Deven v. Dynamic Auto Images, Case No. G048064 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 22, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff dismissed a harassment lawsuit which contained some tort and contractual claims. Defendant moved to recover some attorney’s fees under Labor Code section 218.5, an unpaid wage fee-shifting statute, with the

Retainer Agreement: Invalidity Of Attorney Lien Provision Does Not Invalidate Attempts To Recover For Breach Of Retainer Agreement Or Recover Fees Under Contractual Fees Clause

Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Failure to Appeal Fee Order Was Dispositive, But Invalidity Ruling Was Back Up Reason Fee Recovery Was Allowable Anyway.      In Pierson v. Burlison, Case No. B244908 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 22, 2014) (unpublished), the appellate court decided two things of interest in the retainer agreement/fee areas: (1) an invalid attorney’s lien

In The News . . . Callahan & Blaine Reportedly Receives $6.2 Million In Fees In Class Action Against U-T San Diego Newspaper Over Independent Contractor Versus Employee Issue

Cases: Class Actions, In The News

       As reported in he January 23, 2014 edition of The Orange County Register, well-known trial attorney Daniel J. Callahan of Callahan & Blaine, who headed a $30 million earlier settlement for carriers obtained from Freedom (together with significant fees) in Orange County Superior Court, has won a $10 million judgment against U-T San

Class Actions/In The News: New York District Judge Approves $544.8 Million Fee Award In Visa/MasterCard Antitrust Merchant Class Action

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, In The News

  Court Utilizes “Sliding Scale” Percentage of Fund Approach, Checked by Lodestar With Multiplier. The Price?  Priceless.      After approving a settlement producing a $5.7 billion settlement fund in a class action case brought by merchants against Visa, MasterCard, and several banks relating to certain interchange rates, U.S. District Judge John Gleeson then had to

Scroll to Top