. . . However, Fee Award Had To Be Reduced Down To $2,475 Based on Successful Defense § 988 Offer With Respect To Post-Offer Fees. On appeal, you win some, you lose some, or the appellate court modifies judgments in varying amounts. That third result is what occurred in Kinney v. City of Corona, […]
If Analysis Was OK, Nothing Wrong With The Amount Of The $582,927 Award. In Grossmont Union High School Dist. v. Diego Plus Education Corp., Case No. D080295 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 29, 2023) (published), a trial court determined that a school district should pay private attorney general fees to charter schools for prevailing
Ex-Wife Had To Bear $931,000 In Fees, Much Lower Than Multi-Millions In Fees Incurred By Husband. In re Marriage of Whitman, Case No. A157055 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 29, 2023) (partially published) involved ex-husband, a hedge fund founder, who incurred multi-millions in fees defending himself in a criminal insider trading case and a
Form Does Matter When It Comes To Due Process. In Timlick v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc., Case No. A165127 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 28, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff was awarded $20,950 in attorney’s fees as a discovery “sanction” even though plaintiff’s notice of motion did not identify the party against whom the discovery sanctions
Breadth Of Clause Led To The Result. Co-contributor Mike had wished we had this decision many moons ago because the Second District, in an unpublished decision before the law had evolved, denied fees to an unlicensed contractor only seeking attorney’s fees, not construction compensation, in an arbitration proceeding. In Rodgers v. HB Construction,
Appellate Court Found That Private Attorney General Elements Were Met, Having Good Discussions Of The “Opposing Party,” Public Interest, And Interests of Justice Requirements. In City of Fresno v. Fresno Building Healthy Communities, et al., Case Nos. F084662/F084666 (5th Dist. Dec. 26, 2023) (unpublished), a nonprofit defendant/petitioner Fresno Building Healthy Communities (FBHC) was denied
No Final Judgment Was Entered, And Collateral Order Doctrine Did Not Apply Because The Fee Order Did Not Order Payment Of Money By Partially Prevailing Cross-Defendant. Cross-defendant in Delis v. Thorn, Case No. F084879 (5th Dist. Dec. 26, 2023) (unpublished) successfully SLAPP-ed 4 out of 5 cross-claims, moved for mandatory SLAPP fees, and was
Unique Facts Of The Case Governed The Outcome. The breadth or narrow nature of a contractual fees clause frequently can determine whether fee entitlement exists in a case. De Witte Mortgage Investors Fund, LLC v. Carradine, Case No. B322747 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 19, 2023) (unpublished) vindicates that general principle. Briefly stated, an
Approximate $600,000 Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal. In O’Hara v. Liberty Rural County Fire Protection Dist., Case Nos. C096135 et al. (3d Dist. Dec. 19, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained a $3 million jury damages verdict based on Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights (FPBOR) and federal civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1988) claims, although he
Fifth District Split Decision On This Issue Did Not Need To Be Confronted. The Fourth District, Division Three, in an unpublished decision authored by Presiding Justice O’Leary, did not have to confront an issue which divided the Fifth District in Srabian v. Triangle Track Center, Case No. F080066 (Aug. 12, 2022), where the dissenting
