It Endorsed The Reasoning In The Charton Opinion. In Mosley v. Pacifica Bakersfield, L.P., Case No. F084699 (5th Dist. Sept. 20, 2024) (unpublished), a co-defendant dismissed right before trial was awarded a little over $28,000 in routine costs against plaintiff, who won sizable damages. The Fifth District affirmed, deciding that (1) CCP § 1032(a)(4) […]
Other Non-Settlement Activities Were Improperly Awarded As Attorney’s Fees. Bodero & Associates, Inc. v. Gorman, Case No. A168856 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 20, 2024) (unpublished) is a good example as to when four-corner contractual interpretation will govern a fee dispute, unfortunately requiring a limited remand. Parties entered into a settlement agreement with standard
CCP § 1281.97 Deadlines Run From Second Invoice Where Payment Was Requested. On August 28, 2024, we posted on Anoke v. Twitter, Inc., Case No A168675 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 27, 2024), unpublished at the time, and now published on September 18, 2024. Now citable, this case holds that the CCP § 1281.97
Nonsignatories Stepping Into the Shoes Of Contractual Signatories Can Be Liable For Fees. In Del Rio v. Weis, Case No. A167335 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 17, 2024) (unpublished), Mr. Del Rio sued Homeowners for breach of a home remodel construction contract between Mr. Del Rio’s business, JODT, and Homeowners. Homeowners won and were
The Case Was A Multiple Claimants Matter, With All The Claimants Having To Reach Stipulations With Protections To the Vessel Owner Before The Matter Could Return To State Court. Well, we have a maritime proceeding to blog on. In In re Live Life Bella Vita, LLC, Case No. 23-55613 (9th Cir. Sept. 12,
Trial Judge Applied The Correct Lodestar And Multiplier Factors, Awarding Plaintiff’s Attorneys $1,054,494 In Fees Under FEHA. In Young v. Dept. of Public Social Services, Case No. B329748 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 6, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff won $3.5 million in damages on a retaliation claim, but plaintiff’s attorneys sought a $1.498 million lodestar
Defendant Failed To Prove True The Matters At Issue Under The RFAs. In Decuir v. West Coast Escrow, Case No. B325278 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 5, 2024) (unpublished), defendant won a summary judgment motion, later moving for $36,000 in “costs of proof” sanctions under CCP § 2033.420 for plaintiff’s denial of 2 RFAs—with
Costs And Fees After The Time-Cut Off Were To Be Stricken On Remand. Where an unambiguous CCP § 998 offer has a time cut-off with respect to awarding fees and costs, that will be legally honored. That is what occurred in Olbert v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. B327402 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept.
Mountain Air Affirmative Defense Argument Rejected On Appeal. In American Bldg. Innovations LP v. Balfour Beatty Constr., LLC, Case Nos. G062471 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 3, 2024) (published), plaintiff was found to have violated the unlicensed contractor law by failing to pay workers’ compensation insurance payments on a project, losing a
Both Sides Appealed, But Their Challenges Were Unsuccessful. Simers v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, Case No. B323715 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 30, 2024) (published) involved a long-standing dispute between plaintiff T.J. Simers, a controversial columnist, and defendant L.A. Times involving constructive termination, age discrimination, and disability discrimination claims under FEHA. Needless to
