Arbitrator’s Consideration of 998 Offer After Close Of Evidence Did Not Alter The Result. In Hartzler v. 110 Management, Inc., Case No. B290134 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 12, 2019) (unpublished), property manager of Amy Lee Hartzler, who co-founded the rock band Evanescence, sued for alleged unpaid commissions under a management agreement with a […]
Case Dealt With Striking Landlord’s Fee Prayer Based On Misconduct. In our May 25, 2019 post, we discussed United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC, Case No. B283833 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 22, 2019), which was unpublished at the time. The case dealt with a situation where the 2/8 DCA affirmed a lower
Limited Reversal Did Not Require A Remand, With The Appellate Court Showing Financial Incentives Were Not Outweighed By Financial Burdens To Challenging Developer. Plaintiff developer, whose project was up in the air, challenged a City of Alameda ordinance under which park impact fees of $1.6 million might be imposed on the future project, if
Common Count “Mistake” Claim Against Law Firm Went Away On Appeal Based On Denial Of Tort Claims, With Disgorgement Of Prior Fees Soundly Rejected. A.M. v. Lieff Cabraser Heiman & Bernstein, LLP, Case Nos. B269624 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 11, 2019) (unpublished) involved a high-profile law firm’s representation of a minor
A Stirring Ethical Opinion, Which Every Attorney Should Read. We acknowledge that this post on Lasalle v. Vogel, Case No. G055381 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 11, 2019) (published) is not related to attorney’s fees, but it is worthy of a post and a reminder to all California attorneys that we are both officers
Appeal Sanctions Was Not Imposed For Frivolous Appeal Because Respondent’s Request Was Patently Excessive. Justice Goethals, in Housen v. Ultimate Autoline, Case No. G055878 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 10, 2019) (unpublished), reminds litigants and practitioners that the merits of arbitrator’s decisions are by and large not reviewable and that the arbitrator has limited
Equitable Claims Can Be “On The Contract,” Parties Losing On Their Complaint And Cross-Complaint Meant That Neither Side Prevailed; One Litigant Beat 998 Offer Based On Non-Monetary Value And The Fact That The Composite Joint Nature Of Offer Had To Be Considered, But Matter Had To Be Remanded For Prevailing Party Determination Based On An
Although Judgment Interest Ceased, Judgment Creditor Was Entitled To Seek Fees/Costs To Obtain Satisfaction—Any Other Result Would Be Mischievous! Wertheim, LLC v. Currency Corporation, Case No. B277633 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 6, 2019) (published) was a situation where judgment creditor Wertheim obtained a bonded judgment in its favor but encountered a judgment debtor
Besides That, Fee Substantiation Of A Re-created, Severely Redacted Nature Did Not Support Fee Recovery. Decedent in In re Andersen Family Trust, Case Nos. B286565/B286867 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 5, 2019) (unpublished) left about $1.3 million in assets to three beneficiaries, one of which was designated as the trustee. After a to-do on
$28,795.70 In Fees Went Away Because SLAPP Motion Was Not Frivolous. In Rudisill v. California Coastal Commission (Xingyun, LLC), Case No. B289179 (2d Dist., Div. 2 June 5, 2019) (published), Real Parties were interested in a development project in Venice brought by certain petitioners against the Coastal Commission and City of Los Angeles. Real
