One Supplemental Fee Order Is Summarily Reversed on Appeal; Another is Dismissed as Moot.
Here is a post that only appellate practitioners can love. However, we examine all decisions across the board (and do argue on appeal ourselves, on occasion). So, here you go.
Plaintiff appealed a fee award awarding bank more fees in obtaining a previous fee recovery, and bank appealed from the supplemental fee award on the ground it should have been higher. Then, before these two appeals could be heard, an appellate court reversed the initial fees and costs award to the bank in an opinion that we reported on in a December 1, 2009 post. So, how did the Court of Appeal deal with the subsequent appeals?
The answers lie in Gaggero v. First Federal Bank of California, Case No. B210900 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 7, 2010) (unpublished).
And, the winning answers are ….. (1) bank’s supplemental fee orders were summarily reversed so that no fee orders were intact — a dismissal of Gaggero’s appeal would not have accomplished the desired end, because it would have left the supplemental fee award as a final, enforceable order (cf. Weinstat v. Dentsply Internat., Inc., 180 Cal.App.4th 1213, 122 (2010)); and (2) bank’s appeal for higher fees was dismissed as moot.
Sounds good to us!