December 2022

SLAPP: Third District Affirms A Lower Court’s Award Of Attorney’s Fees And Costs To Plaintiff After Finding That The Defendants’ SLAPP Motion Was Frivolous

Cases: SLAPP

$72,798.65 In Fees And $1,053.50 In Costs Were The Sustained Awards, Plus The Appellate Court Directed The Lower Court To Award Plaintiff Appellate Fees On Remand.             City of Rocklin v. Legacy Family-Adventures-Rocklin, LLC, Case No. C091172 (3d Dist. Dec. 21, 2022) (published) shows how the narrower SLAPP fee-shifting provision can take a bite, allowing […]

Arbitration, Fee Clause Interpretation: $1,648,620.17 Contractual Fee Award By An Arbitration Award Against FeeDx Affirmed In A Ninth Circuit Opinion

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Arbitration Tribunal’s Fee Award Was Not Completely Irrational In Nature Under The FAA.             In HayDay Farms, Inc. v. FeeDx Holdings, Inc., Case Nos. 21-55650/21-55698 (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2022) (published), two parties (HayDay and FeeDx) entered into an exclusive distribution agreement with each other through Nippon, providing for arbitration and making Nippon liable for

Allocation, Trade Secrets: $299,647.50 Fee Award Against Plaintiff For Bringing A Frivolous Trade Secret Misappropriate Case Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Trade Secrets

Lower Court Did Reduce The Fee Request About $121,000 In Fashioning Its Award.             We have a category “Trade Secrets” describing some fairly hefty fee “sanctions” awards under Civil Code section 3426.4, part of the California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act.  To this list can be added the award in SASCO v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc.,

Special Fee Shifting Provisions: Denial Of Fees To Corporate Shareholder Under Corporations Code Section 1604 Was Proper

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Court Of Appeal Applied Civil Discovery Act Definition Of “Substantial Justification” In Construing Section 1604.             In Farnum v. Iris Biotechnologies, Inc., Case No. H047850 (6th Dist. Dec. 19, 2022) (published), the appellate court confronted the issue of how to construe “without justification” in Corporations Code section 1604, which has a discretionary fee-shifting provision in

Year In Review – 2022

Year in Review

Year End-Wrap Up By Mike, Marc, And Shanna For Our Top 20 Decisions In 2022—Part 1 of 2. Courtroom One, James R. Browning U.S. Court of Appeals Building, San Francisco, California.  Carol M. Highsmith, photographer.  2009.  Library of Congress.             As we have done over the years, this blog provides its top 20 attorney’s fees/costs

Deeds Of Trust: $112,390 In Contractual Fees And $4,812.46 In Costs Affirmed Against Borrower Losing Challenges To Validity Of Note And Deed Of Trust

Cases: Deeds of Trust

Once Forgery Challenges Were Lost, The Fees And Costs Orders Were Just Fine.             In Ameris Bank v. Jean-Baptiste, Case Nos. D079378/D079944 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 15, 2022) (unpublished), borrower lost forgery challenges to a note and deed of trust.  Once the validity of the loan documents was sustained in favor of bank by

Appealability, Civil Rights: Disabled Plaintiff Suing Defendant For Website Violations Under The Unruh Act Was Properly Assessed With Defense Attorney’s Fees Of $45,419.50 After Voluntarily Dismissing His Action

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Civil Rights

Plaintiff’s Injunctive Relief Allegations Triggered Civil Code Section 55, Which Allowed Fees To The Defense—Allegations Matter In These Cases.             Sandoval v. Nippon Life Ins. Co. of America, Case No. E077245 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 12, 2022) (unpublished) is an interesting disabled person website case which was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after some discovery. 

Section 998: Subaru’s 998 Offer Was Reasonable And Made In Good Faith, Such That Plaintiff Properly Only Awarded Pre-offer Costs And Subaru Was Properly Awarded Post-offer Costs

Cases: Section 998

Plaintiff’s Appeal Of Order Staying Fee Motion To Determine 998 Offer Validity Was Non-appealable, But Validity Of The Offer Means That No Post-Offer Fees Are Due to Plaintiff On Remand (Likely).             Smalley v. Subaru of America, Inc., Case Nos. G059904/G060441 (4th Dist., Div. 3 December 13, 2022) (unpublished) is complementary of our July 5,

Fee Clause Interpretation, Lodestar: $547,465.10 Fee Award And $23,589.25 Costs Award To Prevailing Defendant Sellers Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar

Liability Cap Did Not Apply To Fees, Out-Of-County Attorneys Showed Good Cause To Represent Defendants In Tuolumne County, And Trial Judge Reduced Fee Request By 20%.             In Apartment Rental Assistance II, Inc. v. 80 Oak Hills, L.P., Case No. F083238 (5th Dist. Dec. 13, 2022) (unpublished), buyer plaintiffs lost a summary judgment to seller

Scroll to Top