Beyond That, Judgment Did Not Have A Fees Award In It. In Salcido v. Platinum Home Mort. Corp., Case No. B289010 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 20, 2019) (unpublished), the trial judge awarded $137,700 in attorney’s fees to a party to a settlement agreement which encompassed “enforcement” or “interpretation” of the agreement, which had […]
Key Decision For Civil Rights and Municipal Attorneys To Read! Beames v. City of Visalia, Case No. F075855 (5th Dist. Dec. 19, 2019) (published) is key reading for civil rights and municipal practitioners on attorney’s fees entitlement under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. What happened in this case is that plaintiff/petitioner obtained superior court
Trial Court Erroneously Used Plaintiffs’ Separate Net Monetary Recovery As Basis For Determining Prevailing Party Rather Than Plaintiffs’ Success In Meeting Litigation Objectives. Patel v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Case No. B293813 (2d Dist., Div. 4 December 17, 2019) (unpublished), includes a nice discussion on prevailing parties under the Song-Beverly Act. Here,
Arbitration Was Properly Ordered Because The Claims Between Client And The Two Law Firms Arose Out Of The Underlying Retainer And Arbitration Agreements Client Signed With The First Law Firm. Client retained a law firm to represent her in an ongoing dissolution action – signing a Retainer Agreement and a binding Arbitration Agreement. During
Compensatory Award Was Only $62.127.20; Reversal Was Based On A 2-1 Opinion On The Substantial Evidence Issue. Just to show you how reversal on appeal for insubstantial evidence can result in havoc, we point you to the result in Flores v. County of Los Angeles Probation Dept., Case No. B287382 (2d Dist., Div. 2
Expenses Are Not Attorney’s Fees Unless Made Clear Under Statutory Language, Which Was Not The Case. In Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801 (U.S. Dec. 11, 2019), the United States Supreme Court decided that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) cannot recover attorney’s fees—salaries of its legal personnel—under 35 U.S.C. § 145, which
Ex-Wife Prevented Ex-Husband’s Access To His Lawyer Such That Conservatorship Had To Be Established, And Wife Had Ability To Pay From Her Divorce Equalization Payment. A family law judge concluded in Marriage of Henkel, Case No. H044147 (6th Dist. Dec. 12, 2019) (unpublished) that ex-wife should be assessed with Family Code section 271 sanctions
Defendants Had Sought $50,190. In Breeze v. Baer, Case Nos. D073898/D074381 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 12, 2019) (unpublished), defendants won a SLAPP motion—affirmed on appeal—and a subsequent fee award of $44,890 (out of a requested $50,190). The fee award was affirmed on appeal, too. Appellant challenged the hourly rates as excessive and argued
Terms Of The Indemnity Did For Recovery Of Fees And Costs From Cross-Defendant. The 2/8 DCA, in ZIM American Integrated Shipping Services, Co. v. GES Logistics, Inc., Case No. B292259 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 11, 2019) (unpublished), had no trouble interpreting the contractual interpretation reached by a trial judge below. What happened is
Trial Court Failed To Consider Any Actual Evidence And Based Its Decision Solely On Argument Of Counsel and Unsworn Statements. In Marriage of Pasco, Case No. C085721 (3d Dist., November 25, 2019) (published), husband requested an order terminating spousal support based on wife’s new job and increased monthly income. To support his request,
