CUP/Oak Tree Dispute Only Producing Non-Merits Administrative Stay Did Not Qualify For CCP § 1021.5 Fees. On February 20, 2020, we posted on Canyon Crest Conservancy v. County of Los Angeles (Kuhn), Case No. B290379 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 19, 2020), unpublished at the time. We can now report that it was published […]
Government Code Section 12598(b) Is Fee Entitlement Provision, With No Need To Gauge Success With Respect To Recovery. Government Code section 12598(b) allows the California Attorney General to recover (mandatory) from defendants named in a charitable trust enforcement action all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in conducting the action, with some discretion allowed
Reason Was That Plaintiff Only Had Limited Success, So No Abuse Of Discretion In The Reduction By The Lower Court. So, a plaintiff prevails on a wage/hour claim for unpaid wages under Labor Code section 218.5, but only gets a minimal award which was limited success when other claims are considered? Does that plaintiff
Fact That Preliminary Injunction Withdrawn Did Not Alter The Result; Its Prior Decision In Bustos Found Persuasive. In Abdulrahim v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. C085656 (3d Dist. Mar. 11, 2020) (unpublished), bank reiterated a lot of argument as to why a borrower prevailing under a California Homeowner Bill of Rights TRO should
HOA Interpretation Of Palm Tree View Policies Was Correct, Such That It Was The Prevailing Party. Over the years, because a lot of us live in common interest developments, we are used to seeing homeowner association fights with homeowners, many occurring based on view restriction or tree limitations—generating plenty of disputes by both sides.
Minor Remand Ordered For Appellate Work Scrutiny, Based On How It Was Brought. If you search on our blog under the “Judgment Enforcement” topical bar, you will see that the next case, Quiles v. Parent, Case No. G056687 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 4, 2020) (unpublished) pops up quite often. We now post on
A “Re-Do” Was In Order Here. SLAPP cross-defendants likely were pleased when a trial judge granted a SLAPP motion, followed by a $31,990 fee award based on the mandatory SLAPP fee-shifting statute. Well, the result was tarnished a bit based on the appellate court’s decision in Sarao v. Barker, Case Nos. B294816/B296391 (2d Dist.,
$818,544 In CCP § 1036 Fees And $182,627 In Costs Went POOF! Code of Civil Procedure section 1036 provides: “In any inverse condemnation proceeding, the court rendering judgment for the plaintiff by awarding compensation, or the attorney representing the public entity who effects a settlement of that proceeding, shall determine and award or allow
Also, CCP § 1029.8 Did Not Apply, Because Defendants Were Neither Unlicensed Contractors Nor Broker-Dealers. Appellate practice can result in a reversal of fortunes. In Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour, Case No. B277750 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 3, 2020) (lead case, published), a $4 million-plus fee award based upon Penal Code section 496(b)
Property Manager’s 998 Offers Were Not Token, Although Some Expert Fees, Exhibits Not Used At Trial, And Attorney Lodging Costs Had To Be Excluded Or Revisited. Lewis v. RDM Mgt., Inc., Case No. B280728 (2d Dist., Div. 7 March 2, 2020) (unpublished) is a situation where plaintiff tenants in a 23-unit apartment obtained a
