Lack Of Express Findings On The Factors Required A Remand. In In re Marriage of Patton, Case No. B329509 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 29, 2024) (unpublished), the appellate court reversed a family law judge’s failure to award Family Code section 2030 fees to ex-wife, where the record showed she made $60,000 […]
Catalyst Theory Was Unavailable Under The Fee-Shifting Statute. In Berry v. Air Force Central Welfare Fund, Case No. 23-15551 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2024) (published), plaintiff sued to recover disability benefits from defendant under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (Longshore Act). After suit was filed, defendant voluntarily paid all the compensation plaintiff
Owner Over-litigated The Case, With Fee Awards Not Having To Be Proportionate To A Litigant’s Recovery. Attorney’s fees awards can be substantial, especially where an opposing party over-litigates a case and drives up the prevailing party’s litigation expenses. That is what happened in Zale Design Studio v. Leevan, Case Nos. B324871 (2d Dist., Div.
CCP § 1281.97 Ties The 30-Day Deadline From The Date Of An Arbitrator Invoice. We have posted about the CCP § 1281.97 30-day deadline for an employer to pay arbitration fees, with most courts strictly construing the deadline (although whether the provision is preempted by the FAA is an issue recently taken up the
Also, We Learn New Things All The Time—Contingency Agreements In Family Law Proceedings Are Against Public Policy. Wright v. Wright, Case No. B330901 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 23, 2024) (unpublished) is interesting on two points: (1) it reversed a CCP § 128.7 sanctions order against a litigant based on litigant’s response to a
However, Notice/Causation/Reasonableness Principles Are Still In Play, Just Under Specific Discovery Abuse Statutes. In City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP, Case No. S277211 (Cal. Supreme Ct. Aug. 22, 2024) (published), the California Supreme Court decided that the general sections of the Civil Discovery Act, CCP § 2023.010 and § 2023.030, allow a trial
Appellate Court Concluded That ADA Statute’s Silence On Fee Award Against Plaintiff’s Attorneys Was Dispositive. Statistically speaking, California state and federal courts (especially federal courts) are inundated with ADA disability lawsuits, many based on Website disabilities for disabled persons. The next case establishes, as far as ADA claims are concerned, dismissals or judgments against
Winning Defendant Did Something Smart: After SLAPP Motion Granted, Offered To Stipulate To A Much Lower Fees And Costs Award, Rejected By Plaintiff. When it comes to the reasonableness of a fee award, we have posted on situations where the prevailing party offered to stipulate to a lower fees/costs award and then obtained a
However, Arbitrator Determined One Homeowner And HOA Prevailed, Hence The Awards. In this category, we have posted on many homeowner disputes where one side prevailed and obtained substantial fee awards under CC&Rs and the Davis-Stirling Act’s fee-shifting statute. We also have posted on where both sides went away empty on fees because an arbitrator
Plaintiffs’ Reasons To Not Reverse The Award Were Unpersuasive. Acting Presiding Justice Segal, author on behalf of the 2/7 DCA in Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., Case No. B318867 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 19, 2024), confronted a very spirited opposition by plaintiffs/class winning substantial fees for why the reviewing court should not
