Oral Motion For Fees Or Fee Request In Responsive Pleading Before A Hearing Did Not Satisfy The Requirement To Bring Through A Noticed Motion. Petitioner losing a civil harassment restraining order was assessed with attorney’s fees under CCP § 527.6 (a fee-shifting provision in this area) to the tune of $3,780 in favor of […]
Suit Did Involve CC&Rs, And Defendant Did Prevail By Being Dismissed, Such That Reversal Means Defendant Condo Owner Will Get Some Fees On Remand. Fee entitlement and prevailing party determinations often are matters of law, as they were here where the pleadings and facts made a reversal of a fee denial – something which
San Diegans for Open Government Decision Is No Longer Good Law Under Section 128.5. Looks like Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb and Taeb, Case No. A152178 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 26, 2019) (published) has finally clarified the differences in “bad faith” now required for the version of CCP § 128.5 in effect under 2017 urgency
2-1 Majority Also Found Denying Motion For Reconsideration Did Not Require A Different Result; Dissenting Circuit Judge Thought The 50% Reduction Was Too Much Without More Explanation, And The Unopposed Reconsideration Request Should Been Considered. Schwartz (Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP) v. Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 18-55618 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2019)
Receivable Collection Cycles With Clients Lengthened During The First Half Of 2019. In an August 21, 2019 article by Debra Cassens Weiss on ABA’s on-line journal, she reports on the results of a Citi Private Bank’s Law Firm Group’s survey of 191 U.S. firms, ranging from top-grossing to boutique firms. Although the polled
However, A Waiver—But Only One Endorsed Through A 2-1 Panel Opinion Split By The 2/5 DCA. 1100 Wilshire Property Owners Assn. v. Wilshire Commercial LLC, Case No. B285336 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 23, 2019) (unpublished) is a case where a court-appointed referee sanctioned plaintiff HOA $31,065 for taking a frivolous legal position in
Trial Judge Did Fashion An Award Less Than The $413,866.50 Fee Request. Lemon law cases under the Song-Beverly Act can lead to significant fee exposure given a fee-shifting provision liberally interpreted to further the remedial nature of the Act in favor of vehicle purchasers. That large fee exposure happened here, much to the chagrin
Action Was Not Frivolous And Was Not Prosecuted In Bad Faith. County of Los Angeles, in Shah v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B291084 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 22, 2019) (unpublished), was not happy when the trial judge denied its attorney’s fees request of $206,157.50 after prevailing against plaintiff on FEHA claims.
Wife Prevailed In Obtaining Certain DVRO Orders Which Justified Mandatory Fees. In In re Marriage of Karen & Jason H., Case No. E068153 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 21, 2019) (unpublished), among other things, wife was awarded some attorney’s fees (all in all, totaling $275,000) against husband. However, some related to her winning domestic
Claiming Party’s Counsel Continued To Use East L.A. Address For Pleadings, Even Though Moving To Simi Valley, Such That Clerk’s Entry Notice To East L.A. Address Supported Striking Costs Memorandum, Which Was Filed Almost Five Months Later. I guess we can say that the moral of AV Sikh Center v. Antelope Valley Sikh Center,
