No Abuse Of Discretion Based On Limited Record. In Rybolt v. Riley, Case No. C087877 (3d Dist. Jan. 26, 2021) (unpublished), ex-husband appealed a Family Code section 271 award of $5,000, payable in monthly $300 installments. Because this was a limited judgment roll appeal, nothing showed that the lower court failed to review relative […]
Trial Court Focused On The “Punishment” The Fees Award Would Impose On Defendant For Unsuccessful Appeal Of Judgment Rather Than Examining Determination Factors For Award Under § 1021.5 And Also Erred In Denying Based On Plaintiff’s Failure To Apportion Fees Between His Private Interests And The Public Interest. In Doe v. Westmont College,
The District Court Did Not Have The Benefit Of The Goodyear Tire Decision At The Time It Issued The Sanctions Order So A Remand Was In Order. America Unites For Kids v. Rousseau, Case No. 16-56390 (9th Cir. January 22, 2021) (published), has a nice discussion on the procedural requirements and substantive limitations
Defendants’ Internet And Twitter Statements Against Plaintiffs Consisted Mainly Of "Vulgar And/Or Adolescent Personal Insults, Misogynistic, Racist, And Xenophobic Comments, And Other Slurs Having Nothing To Do With Any Reasoned Discussion Of Trustworthiness, Competence, Or Any Other 'Public Issue Or An Issue Of Public Interest.'” In Block v. Bramzon, Case Nos. B292129/B297198 (2d
Defendant Was Entitled To Recover Fees And Costs Incurred In Responding To Plaintiff’s Numerous Attempts To Overturn The Trial Court’s Grant Of The SLAPP Motion, Not Just The Fees/Costs She Incurred In Bringing The Anti-SLAPP Motion. After successfully SLAPPing plaintiff’s complaint and being awarded $10,910 in attorney fees and $60 in costs under
However, The Merits Appeal Of The $6,954.95 Sanctions Award Did Not Succeed Based On Failure To Appreciate The Nature Of The Deposition Process. Burke v. Newport-Mesa Unified School Dist., Case No. G058732 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 21, 2021) (unpublished), authored by Justice Goethals of our local Santa Ana appellate court, has some interesting
Whether Fee Clause Was “On The Contract” Or Fell Within The Fee Clause Language Determined The Results In This Case. In the attorney’s fees area in California state courts where contractual fee clauses are at issue, key issues are whether a prevailing party actually prevailed “on a contract” for fee entitlement under Civil Code
Although No True Successor Trustee Was Appointed, Legal Services To The Person Administering The Trust Were Proper Because The Services Benefited The Trust And Because Person’s Services Were Ratified Through A Settlement Agreement. In Orsinger v. Kemp & Associates, Inc., Case No. B303111 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 20, 2021) (unpublished), son of a
2/7 DCA Implicitly Suggests Disagreement With Other Decisions, But Finds Two Sanctions Orders Were Not Intertwined. OK, for you folks who love technical appealability issues, Taylor v. Forde, Case No. B298957 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 20, 2021) (unpublished), may be your forte, especially when it comes to appealability of discovery terminating sanctions orders
Case Is A Real Attention Getter With Respect to Acceptance Of 998 Offers Which Are Carefully Drafted. We like this next case because if offers practitioners on both sides of the aisle an opportunity to carefully craft and accept CCP § 998 offer in certain consumer-oriented areas of the law. Mikki v. Lifemark Group,
