January 2021

Deeds Of Trust, Requests For Admission, Section 1717: Civil Code § 1717 And Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.420 Award Of $191,619.47 In Attorney Fees And $29,345.97 In Costs To Defendants Prevailing Against Negligence And Fraud Claims At Trial Affirmed

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 1717

Civil Code § 1717 Fees Are Awardable In An Action To Enforce Or, As In This Case, Avoid Enforcement Of A Contract, And Plaintiff Failed To Prove He Met Any Of The Four Exceptions To The Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.420 Mandated Fee Award For His Failures To Make Admissions.             In Yoon v. […]

Consumer Statutes: $11,425 Song-Beverly Act Fee Recovery, Out Of Requested $49,835 (Plus Multiplier), Reversed Where Plaintiff’s Rejection Of Prior Offer Resulted In Added Value And Where Court Improperly Focused On Contingency Retention Amount

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Re-Do Required Based On These Two Errors.             California’s lemon law statute can result in substantial fee awards under the Song-Beverly Act statutory fee-shifting provision.  However, the lodestar standard must be applied, which means an inquiry into the reasonable work even though prior CCP § 998 offers were rejected and irrespective of any inquiry into

Probate: Where Attorney Only Delayed Distribution But Did Not Conceal Or Remove Funds, Attorney’s Fees Recovery Under Probate Code Section 859 Was Improper

Cases: Probate

Only Three Forms Of Specified Misconduct Give Rise To Fee Entitlement, With None Present Here.              Probate Code section 859 provides that “If a court finds that a person has in bad faith wrongfully taken, concealed, or disposed of [estate] property[,] . . . the person may, in the court’s discretion, be liable for reasonable

Costs: No Costs Awarded To Prevailing Party Winning $2,000 And Limited Equitable Relief In Unlimited Case Involving Feuding Neighbors

Cases: Costs

Trial Judge Did Not Abuse Discretion In Not Awarding Litigation Costs Where Ultimate Win Was Minor In Nature In Unlimited Civil Case.             All litigation practitioners should be attuned to the next case, Van Taylor v. Ivie, Case No. B281545 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 26, 2021) (unpublished), where litigation costs are claimed in an

Allocation, Private Attorney General: Trial Court’s Application Of The Wrong Standard And Inappropriate Basis For Denying Prevailing Plaintiff’s Postappeal Section 1021.5 Motion For Fees Necessitated Remand

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Trial Court Focused On The “Punishment” The Fees Award Would Impose On Defendant For Unsuccessful Appeal Of Judgment Rather Than Examining Determination Factors For Award Under § 1021.5 And Also Erred In Denying Based On Plaintiff’s Failure To Apportion Fees Between His Private Interests And The Public Interest.             In Doe v. Westmont College,

Sanctions: Ninth Circuit Reverses Six Sanctions Imposed By District Court Under Inherent Authority, Rather Than Pursuant To Statute Or Rule, Against Prevailing Plaintiff For Disobeying A Discovery Order

Cases: Sanctions

The District Court Did Not Have The Benefit Of The Goodyear Tire Decision At The Time It Issued The Sanctions Order So A Remand Was In Order.             America Unites For Kids v. Rousseau, Case No. 16-56390 (9th Cir. January 22, 2021) (published), has a nice discussion on the procedural requirements and substantive limitations

Ethics, POOF!, SLAPP!: Attorney Fees And Costs Awarded To Successfully SLAPPing Defendants Goes POOF! With Reversal Of Trial Court’s Partial Grant Of Defendants’ SLAPP Motion

Cases: Ethics, Cases: POOF!, Cases: SLAPP

Defendants’ Internet And Twitter Statements Against Plaintiffs Consisted Mainly Of "Vulgar And/Or Adolescent Personal Insults, Misogynistic, Racist, And Xenophobic Comments, And Other Slurs Having Nothing To Do With Any Reasoned Discussion Of Trustworthiness, Competence, Or Any Other 'Public Issue Or An Issue Of Public Interest.'”             In Block v. Bramzon, Case Nos. B292129/B297198 (2d

Fees On Fees, SLAPP: Trial Court’s Additional Award To Successfully SLAPPing Defendant Of $15,660 In Fees And $368.44 In Costs After Initial Fees Award Of $10,910 And $60 In Costs Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Fees on Fees, Cases: SLAPP

Defendant Was Entitled To Recover Fees And Costs Incurred In Responding To Plaintiff’s Numerous Attempts To Overturn The Trial Court’s Grant Of The SLAPP Motion, Not Just The Fees/Costs She Incurred In Bringing The Anti-SLAPP Motion.             After successfully SLAPPing plaintiff’s complaint and being awarded $10,910 in attorney fees and $60 in costs under

Discovery, Sanctions: $6,954.95 Deposition Discovery Sanctions Award Was Appealable Even Though It Was Payable To Two Different Recipients, While $1,750 Sanctions Award Was Not Appealable

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

However, The Merits Appeal Of The $6,954.95 Sanctions Award Did Not Succeed Based On Failure To Appreciate The Nature Of The Deposition Process.             Burke v. Newport-Mesa Unified School Dist., Case No. G058732 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 21, 2021) (unpublished), authored by Justice Goethals of our local Santa Ana appellate court, has some interesting

Scroll to Top