The Basis For Affirmance: Fee Was Too Big A Bite. In Purifoy v. Howell, Case No. A144262 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 18, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiffs’ law firm appealed a $428,142.50 fee award under CCP § 1021.5. Plaintiffs had won a dog impoundment issue where Saturday should not have been counted as a business […]
Implication Of Shared Representation Did Not Work On Mediation Conditions Precedent Requirement. In most CAR Form Residential Sale/Purchase Agreements, parties must attempt to mediate in order to recover attorney’s fees. This provision is strictly interpreted, as enunciated in Frei v. Davey, 124 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1512 (2004.) However, there are limits, as Toranji v. Kim,
Void Or Voidable? In the last couple of days, the appellate courts have grappled with when attorney’s fees are awardable under Civil Code section 1717 when a contract is declared to be void (whether illegal or under another statutory provision). For example, see our December 14, 2017 post on the unpublished decision by the
Section 14124.72(d) Is the Particular Statutory Section. The California Department of Health Care Services can bring a claim to determine the amount of a Medi-Cal lien after a settlement of a plaintiff’s medical malpractice action, generally a lien where Medi-Cal made payments to repair the damage caused by the negligent doctor. In Martinez v.
In Pari Delicto Exception Sustained the Fee Recovery. What happened in Assadian v. Parsi, Case No. G054037 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 14, 2017) (unpublished) is that a business consultant, who apparently practiced law in an unauthorized manner, did not prevail on contract and other claims against his clients. Just to make the suffering
Amount Of Litigation And Lots Of New Laws Cited As Factors, And Certain Types Of Litigation Identified As Behind The Rating. Dante's 6th Circle of Hell. Wikimedia Commons. Gustave Dore. Confirming its relative rankings in the last few years, California clocked in as #2 on the American Tort Reform Foundation’s list of 2017 “Judicial
FTC Holder Rule Under Consumer Legal Remedies Act And Car Dealership’s Tender Under the Automobile Sales Finance Act Were At Issue. There are many California consumer statutes which allow fee shifting, mainly to the prevailing party—so that a fair amount of them are bilateral in nature (unlike in the employment context, favoring the employee).
Trial Court Had Discretion In Making Prevailing Party Determination, And Did Not Abuse It. Unless you get an outright victory under Civil Code section 1717, the trial judge has discretion to determine if a party prevailed for purposes of fee recovery. The trial judge determined that, although plaintiff did get affirmative recovery, the plaintiff
Narrow Public Benefit Exemption In CCP § 425.17(b) Did Not Apply. In Solomon v. Desert Healthcare Dist., Case Nos. E065066/E065684 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 8, 2017) (unpublished), a trial judge awarded the successful SLAPP-ing defendant $32,750 in attorney’s fees as against the losing plaintiff. On appeal, plaintiff claimed that his suit fell within
Decision Deals With Care In Drafting Settlement/Consent Judgment Language. On December 2, 2017, we posted on Howeth v. Coffelt, a Fourth District, Division One unpublished decision showing how fee recovery must be obtained in a settlement/consent judgment arrangement where the remedies were narrow in nature. We can now report that the case was certified
