August 2024

Private Attorney General: Defendant Who Provided Appellate Amicus In A Proposition 65 Case Finding No Violations Properly Was Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fee Against A Plaintiff Dismissing The Case After Issuance Of The Earlier Appellate Opinion

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Reason Was That Defendant’s Avoidance Of Civil Penalties And The Costs Of Warnings Outweighed Any Important Right, Which Was Coincidental To Its Economic Interests.                In Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Bio Hazard, Inc., Case No. A168332 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 12, 2024) (unpublished), a plaintiff dismissed a Proposition 65 case against defendant after […]

Discovery: $4,508 In Attorney’s Fees Awarded Against MyPillow Mogul Mike Lindell In November 2020 Election Case Resulting In An Earlier $5 Million Adverse Judgment

Cases: Discovery

Fee Request Reduced For Excessive Hourly Rates And For Overbroad Discovery Requests.                In an August 8, 2024 post by some writers for the Business Insider, they report that MyPillow mogul Mike Lindell—who supposedly offered to pay $5 million to any person who could disprove his cyber data and other data relating to the November

Employment, Settlement: $226,000 Stipulated Amount For Attorney’s Fees To Plaintiffs Under PAGA Settlement Validated On Appeal

Cases: Employment, Cases: Settlement

The Defense Could Not Retract From Its Agreed-Upon Settlement Amount.                In Loudon v. DHSE, Inc., Case No. E081497 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 8, 2024) (unpublished), defendants agreed to settle a PAGA action through a written settlement agreement providing plaintiffs were entitled to attorney’s fees of $226,000, or one-third of the PAGA settlement amount. 

Settlement: CCP § 664.6 Settlement Validated Where Lemon Law Plaintiff Agreed To Settle For $100,000 Inclusive Of Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Settlement

Effective 1/1/2021, Section 664.6 Allows A Litigant’s Attorney To Orally Stipulate To A Settlement On The Record.                Lemon law plaintiff was not happy with a lower court’s ruling that found a binding oral, on-the-record settlement which was reached with defendants by her attorneys to settle the case for $100,000 inclusive of attorney’s fees through

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Defendants Winning A Demurrer Dismissal Without Leave Was Contractually Prevailing Party Under Section 1717

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Conspiracy And Unjust Enrichment Claims Fell Within An Operating Agreement Contractual Dispute Ambit.                Many contractual fee disputes depend on whether the claims were “on the contract” under Civil Code section 1717; and if so, who prevailed.  In Zhou v. Hotel Winters, LLC, Case No. C099278 (3d Dist. Aug. 2, 2024) (unpublished), defendants won a

Reasonableness Of Fees: Despite Challengers Prevailing In Private Attorney General Dispute, They Appealed, Arguing The Fee Award Should Be More

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

No, The Actual, Roughly $105,800 Fee Award Out Of A Requested $330.363.75, Inclusive Of A 1.5 Multiplier, Was Affirmed—No More Awarded.                In a recent post, we blogged on the affirmance of a $105,800 fee award (roughly) to challengers in a private attorney general award, and they got there barely under an abuse of discretion

Private Attorney General: $105,797.40 Fee Award To Some Validation Action Challengers Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Fifth District Affirmed After Independent Review Of Significant Benefit Prong Because Remand Would Be Futile Under An Abuse Of Discretion Standard.                In Westlands Water District v. All Persons Interested etc., Case No. F085374 (5th Dist. Aug. 2, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth District reviewed an attorney’s fees award against Water District and in favor of

Section 998: Lower Court Properly Entered Judgment On An Accepted 998 Offer

Cases: Section 998

The Defense Did Not Timely Withdraw Its Offer Before Acceptance, And The 998 Offer Did Contemplate Entry Of A Judgment Based On The Parties’ Conduct.                Courts encourage settlements and acceptance of CCP § 998 offers, if structured correctly.  They generally do not honor untimely attempted withdrawals of those offers after acceptance.  That is what

Appealability, Arbitration, Employment, Preemption: $176,687.96 Fees And Sanctions Award For Employer’s Failure To Advance Fees Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment, Cases: Preemption

Employers Not Paying Fees Upfront Can Be Exposed To Further Arbitration Expenses Before the Axe Comes Down; Appellate Court Found No FAA Preemption, With This Preemption Issue Now Being Reviewed By The California Supreme Court.                Although unpublished, Costa-Fleeson v. Americor Funding, Inc., Case No. G062962 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 1, 2024) (unpublished) is

Eminent Domain, Reasonableness Of Fees: City Losing Summary Judgment Motion In Eminent Domain Proceeding Was Properly Saddled With $246,744.50 In Fees

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Summary Judgment Grant Was A Predicate For CCP § 1268.610 Fees, And Lower Court Made Reductions For Duplicative Work.                In City of Ontario v. We Buy Homes Any Condition, LLC, Case No. D083080 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 19, 2024 filed) (published on July 31, 2024), City lost an eminent domain case at the

Scroll to Top