Total May Soar To $34.5 Million Based On Some “Pipeline” Contracts to Law Firms As reported by Crain’s Detroit Business in a September 2, 2018 post, the State of Michigan already has spent $26.5 million in fees paid to private law firms in civil and criminal cases arising out of the Flint, Michigan water crisis. […]
Myriad of Arguments, Including Prevailing Party Determination, Were Rejected On Appeal. This one shows how a delinquent water bill for $25,000 can mushroom into additional fee exposure of $82,762 when there is a local fee-shifting ordinance under which a local water district prevails. What occurred in San Benito County Water Dist. v. McAlpine,
Although Parties Settled, The Settlement Agreement Preserved The Prevailing Party’s Ability To Recoup Fees. Plaintiff’s successor under certain loan documents brought a judicial foreclosure action against defendant borrower, who brought a declaratory relief cross-complaint claiming repayments all had been timely made. During the course of the litigation, a bank produced information showing that the
Plaintiff Obtained $221,166 In Fees, Affirmed On Appeal. Burgess v. Fair Political Practices Comm’n (FPPC), Case No. E068433 (4h Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 30, 2018) (unpublished) involved a situation where a plaintiff involved with a nongovernmental agency/commission was charged with financial conflict-of-interest violations by the FPPC, with the superior court granting a petition for
Both Sides Appealed, But Trial Court’s Fee Recovery Orders Were Affirmed. In Geiser v. Kuhns, Case No. B279738 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 30, 2018) (unpublished), defendants were awarded $40,000 in attorney’s fees based on defeating plaintiff’s civil harassment action but were denied additional fees based on the defense SLAPP motions because the lower
Lots of Questions Remain, Given This Was Not An FAA Case; However, Boilerplate Conflict Waivers Do Not Do The Trick. The California Supreme Court has just come out with a widely-watched opinion in Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Case No. S232946 (Cal. Supreme Court August 30, 2018) (published), although it
Case Involved Johnny Depp, And May Send Some Ripples Through Entertainment Industry. This next case, although only at a state superior court level, may send some shock waves on how entertainment agreements are structured between actors and their lawyers. What happened here is that Johnny Depp challenged millions of dollars paid out to
$625-675 Partner Hourly Rates And $395-475 Associate Hourly Rates Were Found Reasonable For Los Angeles Attorneys. In SP Investment Fund I v. Grossman, Case No. B284289 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 29, 2018) (unpublished), prevailing plaintiff moved for attorney’s fees based on a contractual fees clause, winning the whole requested tamale (including additionally requested
Costs Memorandum Or Fee Motion Were Proper Methods To Request Fee Recovery Under CCP § 527.6. In Tardaguila v. Conley, Case No. B279316 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 29, 2018) (unpublished), prevailing defendant was awarded $8,956.34 in attorney’s fees after plaintiff dismissed her petition for civil harassment restraining orders against defendant. Fees are allowable
Fee Clause Interpretation By Arbitrator, Even If Incorrect, Was Unreviewable In Nature. Arbitration is in vogue, but it gives tremendous discretion to the arbitrator and, in most instances, the awards are not reviewable even if factually and/or legally erroneous in nature. Engel & Engel, LLP v. DeLong, Case No. B279576 (2d Dist., Div. 2
