Beyond That, The Defense Did Not Pull The Trigger Too Hastily On Motions To Compel, Trying To Work It Out. Discovery frequently is the bane of both practitioners and judges, not to mention studies that confirm it has led to an increase in the costs of civil litigation for many, many cases. California has […]
Third District Applied Analogous Reasoning From Flannery Decision. Many times, “ownership” of an attorney’s fees award can be critical—does it belong to the attorney or the client, especially after disputes fester? The Third District in Aerotek, Inc. v. Johnson Group Staffing Co., Inc., Case No. C078435 (3d Dist. Sept. 15, 2020) (published) decided where
Settlement Misconception By The Parties Allowed Dismissed Board Members To Seek Fees. In Gallian v. Gragnano, Case No. G057198 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 15, 2020) (unpublished), HOA sued a homeowner for architectural violations under the CC&Rs, which prompted homeowner to crossclaim against the board members for indemnification, fault apportionment, and declaratory relief. The
Self-Represented Ex-Husband Learned The Hard Way That Uncooperative Conduct, Unduly Delaying Resolution, And Refusal To Participate In RFO Hearing Can Be Incredibly Costly – And This Was On Top Of $13,200 In Sanctions Already Issued Against Him Earlier In This Case. In Marriage of Ehirim, Case No. E072397 (4th Dist., Div. 2 September
Case Reminds Practitioners To Allow For Acceptance By Each Defendant. CCP § 998 is a “stick and carrot” statute designed to encourage settlements. However, it does have some procedural requirements which are mandatory in nature. Burchell v. Faculty Physicians & Surgeons of The Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Case No. E071146 (4th Dist.,
Precise Language In 998 Offer Is Needed To Limit Its Scope—Otherwise, Beware Because You Will Not Get Fee Shifting. Appellate courts do not like broad, uncalibrated 998 offers. Kennedy v. City of Fresno, Case Nos. F077029/F077585 (5th Dist. Sept. 10, 2020) (unpublished) illustrates this principle well, as we discuss below. There, City of
Case Dealt With Reversal Of Fee Award On Security Deposit Withholding, Requiring A Restudy Of An Older Fee Award. On August 21, 2020, we posted on the decision of Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc., Case No. D076214 (4th Dist., Div. 2), which was unpublished at the time. That case reversed a $121,043
Specific Statute Prevailed Over More General One As Far As Fee Entitlement. When two fee-shifting statutes collide, they sometimes can be reconciled but sometimes cannot—the latter was the conclusion in Dept. of Fair Employment & Housing v. Cathy’s Creations, Inc., Case No. F077802 (5th Dist. Sept. 9, 2020) (published). There, defendants prevailed in
Fifth District Enunciates Test For Unincorporated Associations. In Vosburg v. County of Fresno, Case No. F078081 (5th Dist. Sept. 9, 2020) (partially published; fees standing issue published), an unincorporated association representing mental patients in a representative capacity sought to recover $44,218.13 in attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, California’s private attorney
Higher Hourly Rate Awarded For Out-Of-County Attorney Affirmed Where Successful SLAPP Defendant Showed Good Faith Effort To Hire Local Counsel. We discussed Marshall v. Webster, Case No. C088240 (3d Dist. August 27, 2020) in our August 27, 2020 post – a partially published case, with the fee discussion unpublished. In Marshall,
