In a March 22, 2014 post, we discussed Rosen v. LegacyQuest, a case holding that certain post-judgment enforcement fees can be collected from sureties. We can now report that this decision was certified for publication on April 8, 2014.
Once Some Degree of Success in Shown, Fee Claimant Must Satisfy Some Elements of Multi-Factored Test For Discretionary Fee Award. Pretty recently, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Donachie v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 2014 WL 928971 (2d Cir. Mar. 14, 2014), had to decide what factors are used to
Fee Entitlement Justified Under Storage Contract “New Customer” Fee Clause. Unfortunately, this next case—involving an in pro per plaintiff who looks like she was overmatched—still illustrates our Mission Statement that a small dispute, whether won or lost, can still generate fees which eclipse what is involved on the merits—something both litigants and practitioners
Trustee Had Sought About $1 Million Under Both Statutes. In a lot of cases where pure or predominantly legal issues are involved, the lower court’s determinations on factual issues win the day. That is also the case in the fee proceeding area, where factual findings determine who actually prevailed if the record demonstrated
Based on reader feedback, here is a summary of cases involving fees/costs issues that are currently pending for review before the California Supreme Court: 1. SLAPP—Barry v. State Bar of California, No. S214058 (formerly published at 218 Cal.App.4th 1435): if the trial court grants a SLAPP motion on the ground that the
Lodestar Plus 2.0 Positive Multiplier Fee Award Went Away. Van de Kamps Coalition v. L.A. Community College District, Case No. B241970 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 2, 2014) (unpublished)involved a CEQA challenge in litigation between plaintiff and LACCD (primarily) regarding the historic Van de Kamp’s Bakery property located around Fletcher Drive and San
Written Fee Order Was Enough of a Trigger, So Appeal Was Late. The Ninth Circuit in S.L. v. Upland Unified School Dist., Case No. 12-55715 (9th Cir. Apr. 2, 2014) (published) had to decide an appeals timing issue and, in doing so, provided a graphic “practice tip” for federal court practitioners/litigants desiring to
As reported in Art Marroquin’s article in the April 2, 2014 The Orange County Register, Anaheim’s City Council agreed to pay more than $1.22 million to cover the fees/expenses of ACLU attorneys and three Anaheim residents in litigation brought under California’s Voting Rights Act (which has a fee-shifting provision)—with the litigation alleging that
Ford Motor Hit With $50,574.19 Lemon Law Jury Verdict, And Then Hit Again With $342,540.25 In Fees As Well As Costs/Expenses On Top. Many California consumer statutes, like the lemon laws, have mandatory fee-shifting statutes. Frequently, a winning plaintiff can obtain fee awards that are many times a multiplier of the underlying merits
