A Question Of Timing: Case Explains How To Handle Costs Under Section 998 In An Arbitration. Heimlich v. Shivji, S243029 (Cal. S.Ct. 5/30/19) (Corrigan, J.) is good news for practitioners, because it settles a timing issue, but it is no help to the hapless appellant who helped make law. Code of Civil Procedure […]
USAO’s Updated Matrix Had Too Large Of A Community Pool For Fee Shifting-Purposes. In DL v. District of Columbia, No. 18-7004 (D.C. Cir. May 21, 2019), the D.C. Circuit was faced with determining whether plaintiff was properly awarded attorney’s fees in an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) case after the district judge accepted
Creditor Properly Recovered Only $2,500 Out Of A Requested $15,730 In Fees Against Debtor. In Murphy v. Combat Sports Academy, LLC, Case No. A153937 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 24, 2019) (unpublished), a plaintiff creditor structured a settlement with defendant debtor by which a stipulated judgment would be entered for $150,000 from a “true”
Section 218.5(a)’s Policy Prevailed Over Section 1717 In This Instance. Dane-Elec Corp. v. Bodokh, Case No. G055312 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 24, 2019) (partially published; fee discussion published) involved the collision between two fee entitlement provisions—Labor Code section 218.5(a) and Civil Code section 1717. Labor Code section 218.5(a) is a unilateral-fee shifting
Probate Code Section 15642(d) Was Other Fee Entitlement Basis, But Rejected Below. In Meyers v. Meyers, Case No. A154912 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 23, 2019) (unpublished), two sisters—one of which was trustee and other of which a beneficiary along with the trustee sister—got entangled in a battle when trustee sold a property to
Merits Of Fee Rulings Were Beyond Review. As we have posted on many occasions, contractual interpretation or merits rulings are generally beyond trial court or appellate review in a vast majority of situations under Moncharsh v. Heily & Blaise, 3 Cal.4th 1, 11-12, 33 (1992). The arbitrator, in a real estate dispute, found against
However, Losing Party’s Failure To Appeal Earlier Fee Award Led To The Equitable Resolution By The Appellate Court. Adams v. Easley, Case No. C081016 (3d Dist. May 23, 2019) (unpublished) is an interesting case where an in pro per tenant plaintiff was assessed with additional appellate fees of $7,548 in favor of landlord in
Appellants Did Not Help Themselves By Calling Lower Court Rulings “Gibberish” and “Legal Nonsense.” In United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, Case No. B283833 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 22, 2019) (unpublished), landlord sought unpaid rent of less than $50,000, but then sought $2 million in fees for post-judgment work over the course of
$281,577 Paid For Public Work Contractor Appeal Work Did Not Begin To Match Potential Fallout If Things Went Differently. Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc., Case No. B291036 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 22, 2019) (unpublished) is an interesting example of how the financial interest prong of CCP §1021.5, the
However, Arbitrator’s Decision Not To Award Almost $1 Million In Arbitration Fees Based On Trope Prohibition Was Nonreviewable “Arbitrator Judgment Call.” In eGumball, Inc. v. Call & Jensen, et al., Case Nos. G055852 and G055989 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 17, 2019) (unpublished), a well-known Orange County law firm initiated arbitration to collect unpaid
