Plaintiffs’ Counsel Wanted Sanctions Award “Offset” Against Judgment Obtained By Counsel For Fees Judgment Adverse To His Clients, But It Was Not In The Cards! Talk about an interesting card game, the next case—Petrik v. Mahaffey & Associates (Berger Kahn), Case No. G055779 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 25, 2019) (unpublished)—exemplifies this in spades. […]
Trial Court Would Have Granted SLAPP Prior To Dismiss, Such That Amendment Nuanced Argument Did Not Change The Result. In Contreras v. Contreras, Case No. G056710 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 25, 2019) (unpublished), a plaintiff dismissed a slander title cause of action while a SLAPP motion was pending although the trial court would
$2.4-3.8 Million Fee Request In Civil Rights Case Properly Denied In Entirety. On June 7, 2019, we posted on Guillory v. Hill, Case No. G054027 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 31, 2019) (unpublished), where a $2.4-3.8 million fee request under a section 1988 was denied in entirety based on minimal success and what the
$108,935.37 Net Recovery Went POOF!; However, Result May Be Academic Because Fee Motion Can Be Renewed Following Entry Of A Final Judgment. Prematurity of a “prevailing party” determination for fees and/or costs is a good ground to deny a litigant’s motion for the same, but it may just postpone some award in that litigant’s
$182,000 Fee Award To Defendant Affirmed On Appeal. In Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC v. High Seas Yacht Charters, LLC, Case Nos. G054706/G054877 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 24, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff landlord and defendant tenant got involved in a major tussle over office space and bloat slips leased to tenant defendant. Landlord
Communication/Clarity At All Stages Pervade These “Rules.” We thank NALFA for summarizing an article by Todd C. Scott, Vice-President of Risk Management at Minnesota Lawyers Mutual, entitled “Nine Rules For Billing Ethically and Getting Paid on Time” (which came from an ABA website article). Here are the rules, to which
More Nuanced, Granular Analysis Required Under The Circumstances. In re Marriage of Ciprari, 32 Cal.App.5th 83 (2d Dist., Div. 1) (2019) is an important case both for the type of expert testimony which can be allowed in “tracing” cases as well as holding that needs-based fees can be allowed to a litigant having access
Majority And Dissenting Justice Disagreed On The Meaning Of A $500 Fee Cap Provision When Another Provision Discussed Additional Fees Being Within Play. We know from 511 S. Park View, Inc. v. Tsantis, 240 Cal.App.4th 44, 48 (2015) [discussed in our October 10, 2015 post] that courts will honor a contractual “cap” of fees
Record Showed She Went Through A Lot Of Attorneys And Rejected Initial Settlement Offers Which Were Within The Realm Of The Ultimate Outcomes In The Dissolution Case. In Marriage of Santore, Case No. G055121 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 21, 2019) (unpublished), ex-wife was denied a request for $193,223.43 in attorney’s fees based on
Successor Counsel Has At Least A Warning Duty, And Successor Counsel May Have More Obligations If That Counsel Tries To Resolve Dispute With Prior Counsel. We can report that the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility recently released Formal Opinion 487, for which we provide a hyperlink. It deals with
