The Trial Court Erred In Its Interpretation Of Family Code §§ 1101 And 2107. In Marriage of Yiu and Liu, Case No. B293754 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 17, 2020) (unpublished), husband appealed the trial court’s award of attorney fees to his wife under Family Code § 1101(g) and its denial of his […]
No Evidence That Case Was Filed Or Maintained For An Improper Purpose. In Fong v. Eastern Municipal Water Dist., Case No. E071088 (4th Dist., Div. 2 July 16, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff—through an attorney—filed a complaint alleging illegal recording Penal Code and FEHA claims. Her attorney withdrew from the case, and the defense filed an
Grant Of Full Lodestar Request Was The Main Reason For Refusing Multiplier, A Determination Affirmed On Appeal. A plaintiff prevailed on FEHA claims against defendant in Scudder v. Dept. of Transportation, Case No. B293859 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 14, 2020) (unpublished). Plaintiff then moved for attorney’s fees in a lodestar amount of $592,075
This One Counsels Transactional Lawyers To Make Sure Express Assignments Are Inked. In Orozco v. Conrad, Case No. C086667 (3d Dist. July 14, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained a compensatory and punitive damages verdict from a jury, with the trial court reducing damages for multiple reasons. The lower court then denied both parties’ fee requests
Defendant’s Claims Of Litigation Privilege And Anti-SLAPP Law Protections Were No Defense Of Her Violations Of Restraining Order. Self-represented husband and wife were involved in litigation through various lawsuits against self-represented ex-girlfriend of husband – claiming ex-girlfriend conspired with others to fraudulently obtain money, including substantial sums allegedly conned from husband. Husband’s relationship with
Arbitrator Exceeded Authority On Remand By Conducting Arbitration Inconsistent With Instructions From The 4/1 DCA It may not happen often, but arbitration awards do occasionally get reversed. In this case, litigants are now returning for round three. In the first round, plaintiffs received an arbitration award of $30,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.
Plaintiff’s Action Did Not Result In A Significant Benefit To The General Public. Code Civ. Proc. section 1021.5 does not guarantee fee entitlement to a successful party in an action resulting in the enforcement of an important right affecting public interest. Rather, section 1021.5 includes a three-prong prerequisite for an attorney fee award:
That Means That Petitioner’s Motion To Recover Fees Of $22 Million Under A One-Way Fee Shifting Statute Went Bye-Bye. Petitioner’s neighborhood association and a resident, in Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, Case No. B295935 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 9, 2020) (published), had successfully sued Santa Monica when a lower court
However, Appellate Court Strongly Suggested That Attorney’s Fees Were Not Automatic, Given The Lower Court Can Find No One Prevailed—Fee Standard Is Different. In The Real Estate Store v. Michel, Case No. B301771 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 8, 2020) (unpublished), defendant obtained a reversal of a “each side bears its own costs and
The Trial Judge’s Call On Which Side Achieved Its Litigation Objection Was Correct. On June 24, 2020, we posted on Redondo Beach Waterfront, LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, Case Nos. B291111/BS168564 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2020), unpublished at the time. We can now report that it was partially published on July
