The Defense Did Not Timely Withdraw Its Offer Before Acceptance, And The 998 Offer Did Contemplate Entry Of A Judgment Based On The Parties’ Conduct. Courts encourage settlements and acceptance of CCP § 998 offers, if structured correctly. They generally do not honor untimely attempted withdrawals of those offers after acceptance. That is what […]
Employers Not Paying Fees Upfront Can Be Exposed To Further Arbitration Expenses Before the Axe Comes Down; Appellate Court Found No FAA Preemption, With This Preemption Issue Now Being Reviewed By The California Supreme Court. Although unpublished, Costa-Fleeson v. Americor Funding, Inc., Case No. G062962 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 1, 2024) (unpublished) is
Summary Judgment Grant Was A Predicate For CCP § 1268.610 Fees, And Lower Court Made Reductions For Duplicative Work. In City of Ontario v. We Buy Homes Any Condition, LLC, Case No. D083080 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 19, 2024 filed) (published on July 31, 2024), City lost an eminent domain case at the
Santisas Rule Applied, With Dismissed Cross-Complaint Only Raising Contractual Claims. In Colaco v. Marcum LLP, Case No. B326252 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 30, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff sued his accounting firm for misrepresentation after losing money in some investments, with the defendant obtaining summary judgment and then voluntarily dismissing a cross-complaint containing indemnity and
Voluntary Dismissal Before Opposition To Summary Judgment Motion Did Not Do The Trick. In Garcia v. Zarco Hotels Incorporated, Case No. B332298 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 29, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff brought an ADA suit challenging a hotel’s accessibility policies to enable disabled persons to determine whether the hotel’s common areas and room were
Orange County Register OpEd Piece Thinks Attorney’s Fees For Plaintiffs Is The Motivating Cause. Although we are not endorsing OpEd views in this blog, we will report on ones which have their own take on issues which the writers believe implicate attorney’s fees issues. The Sunday, July 28, 2024 edition of The Orange
For ADA/Disability Practitioners, A Disabled’s Successor May Have Standing To Pursue ADA And Related Claims For Injunctive Relief. In Saurman v. Peter’s Landing Property Owner, LLC, Case No. G061561 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 26, 2024) (published), the Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment grant and $98,852 CCP § 128.7 sanctions award against
Concurring Justice Explains That A More Flexible Standard Of Intra-Circuit Stare Decisis Is Applicable To State Law Questions. In AGK Sierra De Monteserrat, L.P. v. Comerica Bank, No. 23-15290 (9th Cir. July 19, 2024) (published), the Ninth Circuit reversed a district judge’s grant of attorney’s fees as damages under an indemnity provision despite California
Good Discussion Of Professional Responsibility Rule Requirements For Flat Fee Agreement Arrangements. In Dickson v. Mann, Case No. D081851 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 16, 2024) (published), an appellate court has a discussion on who owns and how to handle client funds under a flat fee agreement. There, it agreed with a lower court’s
Judgment Was Void On Its Face. A judgment based on acceptance of a CCP § 998 offer was found void because the accepting party made a counteroffer in Endrawes v. Mitchell, Case No. B330916 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 16, 2024) (unpublished). There, a defendant accepted a 998 offer but added language indicating appellant
