May 2018

Sanctions:  U.S. Magistrate Judge Issues $10,000 In 28 U.S.C. § 1927 Sanctions Against Class Action Attorney Giving Dishonest Excuse For Not Timely Filing Class Certification Motion

Cases: Sanctions

Instagram And Suspicious Plane Itinerary, Along With Attorney Admission, Led To Imposition Of Sanctions.             When it comes to blowing deadlines which can be cured, counsel should be candid with courts in requesting relief, which can be granted if the circumstances are right.  The next situation, which has drawn quite a bit of publicity, illustrates […]

Class Action:  N.D. California District Judge Trims Class Action Counsel Payout In Fitbit Heart Rate Tracker Investor Lawsuit

Cases: Class Actions

25% Percentage Of Recovery Too Rich For This Case, Plus District Judge Earlier Required More Detail On Expenses.             Federal district judges are the ultimate gatekeepers on class action settlements, making sure that any settlements are fair to the class and class counsel fees are reasonable in nature.             Fitbit was sued in a class

Equity:  Trial Judge Deciding In Earlier Statement Of Decision There Was A Factual Basis For Attorney’s Fees Improperly Revisited Factual Determination Through Motion To Vacate Judgment Under CCP § 663a

Cases: Equity

This Was Tantamount To Making Improper Additional Findings Of Fact To Earlier Decision.             In a tutorial on the proper use of a motion to vacate judgment under CCP § 663a, Master Plumbing and Sewer, Inc. v. Fountaine West Condominium Owners Assn., Case No. A143711 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 3, 2018) (unpublished) shows what

Private Attorney General:  Plaintiffs Invalidating Construction Based On Invalidity Of Six Of Eight Variances Entitled To CCP § 1021.5  Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$974,137.50 Fee Award Affirmed By 2/2 DCA.             La Mirada Ave. Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles (Target Corp.), Case No. B282137 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 3, 2018) (partially published) involved a situation where two public interest nonprofit plaintiffs challenged L.A.’s granting of eight variances so that a Target big box

Prevailing Party/Section 1717:  Litigants With No Unqualified Clear Win Or Loss Were Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Trial Court’s Discretionary Decision Of No Prevailing Party Affirmed On Appeal.             Under Civil Code section 1717, a trial judge has wide discretion to deny attorney’s fees where there are no clear, unqualified winning litigants such that the results are “mixed.”  Even where a party is ostensibly the prevailing party, the trial judge can still

Cases Under Review/Class Actions:  SCOTUS Grants Certiorari To Decide Whether Class Settlement Where $8.5 Million Was To Be Divided By Class Counsel And Cy Pres Recipients Was Fair In Nature

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Class Actions

Certiorari Granted On April 30, 2018.             In Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961 (U.S. Supreme Court), certiorari was sought by objectors to a class action settlement in a plaintiff class action against Google for alleged federal privacy violations over its search engine.  The settlement provided that nothing would go to class members, but $8.5 million

Allocation/Fee Clause Interpretation:  $66,103 Fee Award Against Losing Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Affirmed Based On Broad Fees Clause And Common Intersection of Complaint And Cross-Complaint Claims

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Underlying Dispute Related To A Grading Of Dr. J’s 1972 Trading Card.             This next case illustrates an interesting application of attorney’s fees principles we have seen in many cases to a dispute over grading of a Dr. J trading card.  Let’s get to it.             In Knafo v. Collectors Universe, Inc., Case No. G055112

Cases Under Review:  California Supreme Court Has Four Fee/Sanctions Issues Pending For Consideration By Our Count

Cases: Cases Under Review

Arbitration 998 Costs Submission Issue, Appeal Jurisdiction Over Sanctions Issue, Arbitration Illegality/Conflicts Issues, And Prompt Payment Statute Issue Are The Ones We See As Pending.               Here is our list of California Supreme Court cases which have attorney’s fees/costs/sanctions issues involved in cases under review. 1.  Heimlich v. Shivji, S243029. (H042641; 12 Cal.App.5th 152;

Scroll to Top