Appellate Court Had No Problem With $9,000 SLAPP Request For 24 Hours Of Work. Just to show you that abuse of discretion is not an unlimited deferential standard of review, we post on Kohanbash v. Specialty Baking, Inc., Case No. B283117 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 1, 2019) (unpublished). What happened in this case […]
Hourly Billing Rate Still Prevails For Legal Work Referred By Corporations To Outside Counsel. The Association of Corporate Counsel and recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa partnered up to release a 2019 Global Legal Department Benchmarking Report, which can be obtained freely through a Website search. It involved interview responses from 508 corporate law
Sixth District Agreed With Third District’s Analysis On The Scope Of CCP § 1036. The Sixth District, in Herrera v. City of San Jose, Case No. H042211 (6th Dist. June 28, 2019) (unpublished) had to face an inverse condemnation fee issue which pops up frequently when the plaintiff “condemnee” is entitled to some amount
One Litigant Cannot Partially Prevail At Trial, And Another On Appeal, For Purposes Of Ultimate Prevailing Party Determination Under Section 1717. The Sixth District in Gambord v. Galli Produce Co., Case No. H043872 (6th Dist. June 28, 2019) (unpublished) faced an interesting issue based on a contractual fees clause under Civil Code section 1717:
$166,027.05 In CCP § 1021.5 Fees Awarded In Charter School Dispute. On June 9, 2019, we posted on Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Julian Union Elementary School Dist., Case No. D073878 (June 4, 2019) (unpublished), which was unpublished at the time. It involved a $166,027.05 CCP § 1021.5 to a partially successful plaintiff
Dissent Found That Most Of Counsel’s Efforts Were Trivial On Wage Statement Claim, With Most Of Fees Expended On An Unsuccessful Meal/Rest Break Claim. Just to show you how class actions producing a lack of real-life benefits draw very different judicial reactions, one needs to go no farther than Ebo v. The TJX Companies,
Evidence in Record Did Suggest Ex-Wife Had Disparity In Ability to Pay. In Huynh v. Cao, Case No. A154556 (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 27, 2019) (unpublished), the 1/4 DCA had to review several fee/sanctions awards and rulings in a dissolution matter. First of all, it reversed a $37,679.50 fee award to ex-husband because
Residential Security Deposit Scheme Did Not Preempt Tort Fee Award; But Landlord Correctly Reduced Landlord’s Fee Request Of $659,367.56 For Various Reasons Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Weingart, sitting by assignment on the 2/1 DCA, has penned a nice decision in Sweeney v. Scully, Case No. B284915 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 27,
$6,400 Sanctions Award Against Attorney Was At Issue For Going Away On A European Vacation Rather Than Reporting For Trial. In Mid-Centry Insurance Company v. Mazarei, Case No. G056643 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 27, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff insurer was suing to recoup defense expenses to an insured, with the lower court determining that
Record Showed That Defense Failed To Prove Exceptions For Its RFA Denial Responses. In Samsky v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. B293885 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 26, 2019) (published), a lower court denied plaintiff’s request for “costs of proof sanctions” based on defense denial of requests for admissions under CCP
