Reversal By Appellate Court AND Opposition’s Own Positions Sealed The Propriety Of Post-Arbitration Fee Request Denial. Harshad & Nasir Corp. v. Global Sign Systems, Case Nos. B269427 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 15, 2017) (published) is an interesting case involving arbitral review, scope of issues under an arbitration agreement, statute of […]
Decision Held Section 998 Cost-Shifting Prevailed Over FEHA/POBRA Limitations. On July 28, 2017, we posted on Sviridov v. City of San Diego, Case No. D069785 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 28, 2017 unpublished). We now can report that this opinion was certified for publication on August 15, 2017. It decided that CCP § 998 cost
Fees Awarded For Plaintiff’s Lawsuit Against Insurer To Protect Interest In Insurance Coverage Due To Broker’s Negligenc A jury found defendant insurance broker liable to plaintiff art gallery owner for damages resulting from an insurance carrier’s denial of a dealer fine art policy claim after plaintiff sued insurer and incurred fees in pursuing insurance
Lodestar Method Should Have Been Used And Will Be On Remand. In Chen v. M&C Hotel Interest, Inc., Case Nos. B266461/B267622 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 11, 2017) (unpublished), a trial judge was faced with a prevailing plaintiff bringing an attorney’s fees motion under Labor Code section 218.5, which allows fees
Some Sitting Jurists And Law Professor Reveal Their Favorites The August 2017 edition of the ABA Journal has an article, “Honoring Our Favorite Your Honors,” where several sitting jurists and one law professor list their favorite judges from the movies or television. Here they are: Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski (Ninth Circuit Court of
$61,565 Fee Award Sustained On Appeal Nonsignatories defendants were awarded attorney’s fees of $61,565, drawing an appeal from the plaintiff in Westco Petroleum Distributors, Inc. v. Huntington Beach Industrial, Case No. B269393 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 10, 2017) (unpublished). After surveying section 1717 jurisprudence which does allow fee recovery to nonsignatories like the
Frye v. Collins, Case No. A143623 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 9, 2017) (unpublished) In this one, a trustee lost certain trust challenges by other relatives, also saddled with a costs/fees award of $440,000. This award was affirmed because the lower court decided that it should be paid out of the entire trust res,
Result Was To Affirm A $470,461.55 Fee And $15,511 Costs Awards. Who says that fee and costs awards under California’s private attorney general statute cannot be substantial in nature? Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, LLC, Case Nos. A1442681/A145176 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 9, 2017) (published) demonstrates they can, and frequently, are.
In Dicta, State Supreme Court Does Not Pass On Trade Secret Fee-Shifting Principle We believe that all attorneys might breathe a little easier after the recent decision of our California Supreme Court in Parrish v. Latham & Watkins, Case No. S228277 (Cal. Supreme Court Aug. 10, 2017) (published). In this one, plaintiff lost
HOA-Homeowner Battles Can Result In Large Fee Exposure We do not really need to get into the specifics of Mustafa v. Mountain View Park Homeownerss Assn., Inc., Case No. E063529 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 8, 2017) (unpublished), but the end result in sobering for purposes of our blog. Basically, homeowner lost a gnarly
