Wrapping It Up: M & M’s Top 2012 Decisions — Part 2 of 2.
Wrapping it up. Museum. Gizeh, Egypt. c1908. Library of Congress.
It is that time of year, at year end 2012, for us to list our top 25 published attorney’s fees decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and California Courts of Appeal. In Part 1 of 2, we listed the first 13 decisions of interest, although the ranking was not in order of importance given the span of substantive areas involved.
Now we discuss the second installment, the remaining 12 decisions to round out our Top 25 Decisions for 2012.
12. Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Brown, 206 Cal.App.4th 515 (May 24, 2012) [1st Dist., Div. 5]: No Civil Code section 1717 fees should be awarded to a party winning or defeating a motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit until lawsuit/arbitration determined, but party defeating compel arbitration petition in discrete proceeding alone is generally entitled to 1717 fee recovery. [Discussed in our May 27, 2012 post.]
11. Sumner Hill Homeowners’ Assn. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC, 205 Cal.App.4th 999 (Apr. 2, 2012) [5th Dist.]: Attorney’s fees expended to clear title are compensable slander of title damages where slander is contained in recorded instrument. [Discussed in our May 3, 2012 post.]
10. Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., 53 Cal.4th 1244 (Apr. 30, 2012) [Cal. Supreme Court]: Neither Labor Code sections 1194 nor 218.5 authorizes an award of attorney’s fees to a party prevailing on a failure to provide rest/meal breaks under Labor Code section 226.7. [Discussed in our May 1, 2012 post.]
9. Estate of Wong, 207 Cal.App.4th 366 (June 27, 2012) [1st Dist., Div. 2]: Attorneys seeking payment of ordinary service fees from probate estate not foreclosed from fee recovery by lack of a written retention agreement. [Discussed in our June 28, 2012 post.]
8. Healdsburg Citizens For Sustainable Solutions v. City of Healdsburg, 206 Cal.App.4th 988 (June 4, 2012) [1st Dist., Div. 4]: Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274 (1995) in pro per limitation does not apply to winning attorney/litigant in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 public litigation. [Discussed in our June 5, 2012 post.]
7. Haynes v. City & County of San Francisco, 688 F.3d 984 (Jul. 23, 2012) [9th Cir.]: Attorney’s ability to pay can be considered by district judge when imposing 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions on an attorney. [Discussed in our July 25, 2012 post.]
6. Jankey v. Lee, No. S180890 (Dec. 17, 2012) [Cal. Supreme Court]: Unruh Act’s Civil Code section 55 fee-shifting provision is bilateral and not preempted by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), disagreeing with Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC, 554 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2009). [Discussed in our Dec. 17, 2012 post.]
5. Kandy Kiss v. Calif., Inc. v. Tex-Ellent, Inc., 209 Cal.App.4th 604 (Sept. 21, 2012) [2d Dist., Div. 8]: Defendant in state court obtaining dismissal of action based on exclusivity of federal jurisdiction entitled to Civil Code section 1717 prevailing party fees. [Discussed in our Sept. 22, 2012 post.]
4. Rony v. Costa, 210 Cal.App.4th 746 (Oct. 26, 2012) [1st Dist., Div. 1]: Landowner using unlicensed contractors to cut neighbors’ trees not vicariously liable for fee exposure under Code of Civil Procedure section 1029.8. [Discussed in our Oct. 27, 2012 post.]
3. Sands & Associates v. Juknavorian, 209 Cal.App.4th 1269 (Oct. 10, 2012) [2d Dist., Div. 1]: Firm represented by “of counsel” in a fee dispute cannot recovery attorney’s fees as the prevailing party under the Trope prohibition. [Discussed in our Oct. 10, 2012 post.]
2. Mount Hope Church v. Bash Back!, No. 11-35632 (Nov. 26, 2012) [9th Cir.]: Fees and costs awarded to third party responding to supoena under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 45(c)(1) were reversed because no “undue burden and expense” where costs of compliance were minimal and subpoena not issue in bad faith/not facially defective. [Discussed in our Nov. 27, 2012 post.]
1. Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc., 211 Cal.App.4th 230 (Nov. 20, 2012) [4th Dist., Div. 1]: Victory on promissory estoppel theory was not “on the contract” for purposes of Civil Code section 1717 fee recovery. [Discussed in our Nov. 21, 2012.]
Although we will finish up posts on any tail-end 2012 decisions in the next week, we wish you all a prosperous 2013, reminding everyone in the words of Jonathan Swift: “Every dog must have his day.”
