“Safe Harbor” Argument Might Have Worked, But It Was Waived Because Only Raised In Appellant’s Reply Brief. Hanna v. City of Long Beach, Case No. B281878 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 17, 2018) (unpublished) shows how good arguments can be lost if not timely raised. In this one, City and its counsel were jointly […]
We See A Growing Trend Of Appellate Sanctions In Recent Cases. Appellant in Knudson v. Ryer, Case No. A149532 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 17, 2018) (unpublished) failed to show why RFA costs-of-proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420 should be reversed based on deficient analysis in the appellate briefing. That led the DCA to
However, Costs Award Against Plaintiff’s Counsel Was Void Because Routine Costs Not Normally Allowable Against Counsel. The 4/2 DCA, in Gassner v. Stasa, Case No. E068058 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 17, 2018) (partially published), faced a situation where a trial judge awarded costs jointly and severally against a plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel after
Main Problem Was Failure To Properly Introduce Another Counsel’s Work In Admissible Fashion—Declaration By Later Counsel Did Not Do It. In Eith v. Ketelhut, Case No. B272028 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 17, 2018) (partially published; fees discussion unpublished), many homeowners got involved in a dispute which hinged on whether a HOA Board of
Lower Court Does Not Have To Agree To Maximum Amount Ceiling In “Clear Sailing” Provision Under Settlement Agreement And Does Not Have To Award Percentage of Recovery Fees. Orozco v. Pebble Beach Co., Case No. H044232 (6th Dist. Dec. 14, 2018) (unpublished) demonstrates that lower courts do not have to award percentage of recovery
District Judge Reduced Fee Request By 25%. We can now report that the district judge in Stephanie Clifford v. Donald J. Trump, Case No. CV18-06893-SJO (FFMx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2018 order) has finally decided what attorney’s fees are recoverable by President Trump’s attorneys in the defamation lawsuit brought by Stormy Daniels. President Trump
Answer: Courts Are Split – Some Say No, Some Yes In The Court’s Discretion, And Others Say Yes If The Claims In The Original Suit Allowed For Fee Recovery. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d) provides: “If a plaintiff who previously dismissed an action in any court files an action based on or including
Allowing Plaintiff To Obtain Broader Civil Rights-Type Fees Would Circumvent “Actually Incurred” Restriction in Civil Code Section 1036. Plaintiff must have been ecstatic in Johnson v. South San Joaquin Irrigation Dist., Case No. C079200 (3d Dist. Dec. 12, 2018) (unpublished), after winning an inverse condemnation/tort case against irrigation district after it closed a storm
Also, Denial Of Trial Transcript Expenses Reversed Because They Were Compensable Under Song-Beverly Act Costs/Fee-Shifting Provision. Although occurring in the civil rights context, we foresaw in our December 20, 2015 post on Kerkeles v. City of San Jose, 243 Cal.App.4th 88, 102-104 (2015) that it would have much more significance in other substantive areas.
Year End Wrap-Up: Mike & Marc’s Top 25 Decisions In 2018 Part 2 of 2—Employment Issues, Lender Trust Deed Fee Clauses, Fees As Damages, Section 998, And Sanctions Dominated The Second Batch Of Our Top 25. In line with our prior post on some of the Top 25 decisions, we now round out with
