Ninth Circuit Holds That Class Representative Must Have Opportunity To Show Certification Warranted. On January 29, 2016, we posted on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 163 (2016), which held that F.R.Civ.P. 68 unaccepted offers do not moot either an individual or a class action matter (usually […]
Fee Justified Because Case Was Exceptional, And No “Granular” Analysis Required By District Judge. In Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. v. International Securities Exchange LLC, Case No. 07 C 623 (N.D. Ill. Docket No. 778 Mar. 31, 2016), U.S. District Judge Joan H. Lefkow awarded CBOE all of its requested $6,069,266.81 in attorney’s
Also, Prevailing Defendant Did Not Get Fee Recovery For Texas Counsel Work In California Litigation Where No Pro Hac Vice Admission Was Obtained. Dispatch & Tracking Solutions, LLC v. City of San Diego, Case Nos. D062426 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 8, 2016) (unpublished; over 100 pages long) is quite the
Justice Rubin, In A Long Dissent, Concludes Otherwise. Safarian Choi & Bolstad, LLP v. Minassian, Case No. B262526 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Apr. 7, 2016) (unpublished) involved an ex-client who lost a mandatory fee arbitration to his ex-attorneys. Among other challenges to the arbitration award, ex-client raised the argument that the arbitration panel
However, Subcontractor Not Entitled To Fee Recovery From Homeowners Dismissing Assigned Contractor Cross-Claims Based On Voluntary Dismissal Of Contractually-Based Claims After Presentation Of Trial Evidence. In Mulitz v. L.A. Stucco, Inc., Case Nos. B260314/B262387 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 7, 2016) (unpublished), homeowners sued both contractor and stucco subcontractor for a defective home
It Held That Simply Because Plaintiff Prevailed On SLAPP Motion Did Not Establish Frivolity Requirement To Award Fees Against The Losing Defense. On March 19, 2016, we posted on Baughn v. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, which was unpublished at the time. It held that simply because a plaintiff prevails on a
Considering Mixed Results On Noncontractual Claims Was Error. Justice Thompson, author of a 3-0 panel opinion in Sadr v. Sabet, Case No. G050493 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 5, 2016) (unpublished), provides us with an important nuance in cases where attorney’s fees awards are governed by Civil Code section 1717: the prevailing party
Article Is Written By David J. Cook, With Introductory Photo Of Winston Churchill As A Lead-In. For practitioners interested in post-judgment enforcement and fee/interest issues, we note that David J. Cook has written an article of interest in the April 2016 edition of the Orange County Lawyer, appropriately titled “Confirming The Name And
Case Tells Government Entities To Beware When They Aggressively Litigate And Lose In Pro-Civil Rights Fee Shifting Cases. The next case is one that litigators representing governmental entities need to pay attention to. Often times, government will aggressively litigate until the end, only to tell the appellate court that fees to a successful
. . . . Although Fee Award Made At Same Time As Merits Ruling Can Be Appealed. The First District, Division 3 took the time to reconsider a motion to dismiss a SLAPP plaintiff’s appeal of fairly substantial fee awards after defense grants of a SLAPP motion. (The fee awards totaled over $603,000
