Financial Incentives Element Clarified In 1/1 DCA Unpublished Decision Which Is Now On The Books. On October 2, 2016, we posted on Millview County Water Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., an unpublished September 28, 2016 1/1 DCA decision which reversed a private attorney general statute fee award to a plaintiff, clarifying […]
CCP § 396b(b) Is The Venue “Sanctions” Statute, With Sanctions Properly Levied On Subsequent Attorney Other Than The One Originally Representing Client When Complaint Was Filed. June 29, 1910. L.M. Glackens, artist. Library of Congress. Code of Civil Procedure section 396b(b) does allow a trial judge discretion to award attorney’s fees against
Fees Governed Instead By CRC 3.1185, Not Rule 8.278(c)(1). In Marriage of Hogan, Case No. B265141 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 24, 2016) (unpublished), a couple in a marital dissolution action appealed a trial court’s award of appellate attorney’s fees to an appointed receiver for successfully defending a prior appeal involving the receivership.
Reviewing Court Interprets “Without Any Reasonable Cause” Language, Reversing Fee Denial To Wife As A Matter Of Law And Remanding For A Determination Of Amount Of Statutory Fees Awardable To Her. The First District, Division 1 was obviously troubled by the egregious facts at issue in Humboldt County Adult Protective Services v. Superior
Fee Entitlement Was Lacking Because Relied-Upon Clause Was Only A Third-Party Indemnification Provision. Track reversal system. Jack Delano, photographer. March 1943. Library of Congress. Talk about a swing of events—something which can happen where an appellate court independently reviews a contractual provision under the de novo review standard. In Alki Partners,
Also Agrees That Appellate Review Of Lanham Fee Award By District Judge Is Under Abuse Of Discretion Standard. In an en banc, per curiam opinion, the Ninth Circuit in SunEarth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., Nos. 13-17622/15-16096 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2016) (published), decided that attorney’s fees awardable under the Lanham
Defense Prior Efforts To Settle Contained Unreasonable Extraneous Terms And Case Was Hard Fought, Justifying A $575 Hourly Lodestar Rate. When you try to settle a case, make sure you do not ask for extraneous extractions of an unreasonable or unallowable nature. The failure to do so doomed the defense efforts to challenge
Split Among Circuits At Issue On Class Counsel Fee Valuation Issue. In Blackman v. Gascho, 822 F.3d 269 (6th Cir. 2016), a 2-1 panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals parted company with other federal circuits in awarding class counsel $2.4 million in attorney’s fees even though only $1.6 million in actual
Ill-Defined Planning/Discretionary Immunity Distinction And Factual Finding Of No Bad Faith Sealed The Fee Denial On Appeal. Agee v. Oakdale Irrigation Dist., Case No. F070632 (5th Dist. Oct. 21, 2016) (unpublished) involved a mixed contract/tort multiple-claimed suit against the Oakdale Irrigation District, premised primarily on the claim that OID took two disputed parcels
$10,000 Out Of $28,080 Sanctions Request Granted. In Concepcion Vinas v. Queen of the Valley Medical Center, Case No. A143541 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 20, 2016) (unpublished), attorney was sanctioned $10,000 under CCP § 128.7 for filing a second amended complaint which had the same allegations as a first amended complaint to
