Defense Ignoring Of Offer And Equitable Estoppel Defense Did Not Prevail. Plaintiff’s CCP § 998 offer was found to be invalid by both the lower and appellate courts in Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc., Case No. D063556 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 6, 2017) (partially published; 998 discussion published) based on the failure […]
Also, Costs Memorandum Was Untimely Filed, With Sender Giving Notice Of Judgment Entry Not Getting Benefit Of 5-Day Mail Service Extension. In Hernandez v. Town of Apple Valley, Case No. E063721 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 5, 2017) (partially published; fee and costs discussion not published), plaintiff won on a Brown Act violation,
Part 2 of 2—End of a Prolific Year For Fees/Costs Decisions. As we have done in past years, wishing all readers the happiest of holidays, we now present our top 30 published decisions from California appellate courts, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS), and the Ninth Circuit for the 2016 year. For past
Golden Gate Bridge, 75th anniversary fireworks. Carol M. Highsmith, photographer. 2012. Library of Congress.
Defense Only Said Our Fees Are Only One Third Of The Request, With Trial Court Not Crediting That Retort. In Crowdflower, Inc. v. Asher Insights, Inc., Case No. A143235 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 29, 2016) (unpublished), new office building owner served a CCP § 998 offer in a contentious lease/retaliation dispute with
However, Prevailing Defense Was Entitled To Fees For Tort Claim Work Given Breadth Of Contractual Fees Clause. A trial judge in Khan v. Shim, Case No. H041608 (6th Dist. Dec. 29, 2016) (published) granted the prevailing defense all fees for defensive work incurred in defending against a complaint containing both contractual and tort claims following
State High Court So Decides in a 4-3 Decision. California Supreme Court. Wikipedia. Public domain work. In a case which may have some implications on billing substantiation submitted in support of fee motions, the California Supreme Court—in a California Public Records Act case—decided on a 4-3 vote that the attorney-client privilege does
Cap Only Applies To Claims Directly Resulting From Lease Termination, Not Collateral Issues. The Ninth Circuit in In re Kupfer, No. 14-16697 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2016) (published) considered the extent to which attorney’s fees for certain work were or were not subject to the statutory cap for prospective rent aiding a
Relying Only On Final Settlement Offer, Rather Than Work Performed By Winner, Was Legal Error In Light Of Governing Principles. TSE Worldwide Press, Inc. v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc., Case No. B269747 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 28, 2016) (unpublished) is a reminder that certain challenges by a non-prevailing party to the amount of fees
Pre-2007 CGL Policies Were At Issue. We have a year-end case for you insurance practitioners, especially coverage attorneys. In Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Construction, Inc., Case No. G050759 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 27, 2016) (published), our local Santa Ana court of appeal decided that a pre-2007 CGL “supplementary payments”
