Substitution Out Prior To Discovery Hearing Did Not Preclude The Sanctions Award, With Appealing Attorney Chided For Incivility. Sometimes attorneys just need to “take their lumps” for discovery abuse, whether inspired by the client, counsel, or both to some degree. Masimo Corp. v. The Vanderpool Law Firm, Inc., Case No. G061829 (4th Dist., Div. […]
Even Though The Dismissal Was Strategic, Defendant Did Not Demonstrate Plaintiff’s Claim Was Objectively Specious. The California Uniform Trade Secrets Act does have a fee-shifting provision if a court finds a plaintiff’s trade secret misappropriation claim was made in bad faith (Civ. Code, § 3426.1), which requires a finding of both objective speciousness and
No Evidence On Financial Need Was Presented, Although Appellate Court Noted A Split On Intermediate Appeal Thinking On Whether Needs-Based Fees Are Warranted In This Area. In Marriage of Etheridge, Case No. A167520 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 30, 2024) (unpublished), ex-husband made an oral request for Family Code section 2030 needs-based fees in
Civil Code Section 1882.2 Was The Fee Entitlement Predicate For The Award. Civil Code sections 1882.1 and 1882.2 allow a utility to obtain compensatory damages, trebles damages, and costs/reasonable attorney’s fees against a party who commits or aids and abets a diversion of utility services by any means whatsoever. (§ 1882.2 is the specific
Dissenting Justice Believed Prevailing Party’s Last Year Of Litigation Was Unnecessary Such That Fees For Those Efforts Were Unreasonable. In Castanares v. City of San Diego, Case No. D082562 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 30, 2024) (unpublished), a lower court entered judgment based on the parties’ stipulation that City had violated the California Public
Renewed Fee Motion Was Timely, Where Original Fee Motion Was Filed Within Deadlines. In Shih v. Max, Case No. B324437 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 29, 2024) (unpublished), lower court denied two defendants’ SLAPP fee motions as moot after plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint before the SLAPP motion could be heard, although there were
RFAs Were Not Worded Correctly And Not Of Substantial Importance. If you are going for RFA costs-of-proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420, you should make sure that the RFAs are properly worded to get at facts which must be proven at trial. They also must be requested at a juncture of the case where
No Independent Bad Faith Shown, So Not Another Basis For Fee Recovery. As we have posted before, you must have a legal entitlement for fee recovery. Professional Tax Appeal v. Beverly Gemini Investments Corp., Case No. B321119 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 26, 2024) (unpublished) demonstrates that very well. The essence of the
Ex-Husband Could Not Show An Abuse Of Discretion, Especially With No Reporter’s Transcript. In Marriage of Longinotti and Karpala, Case No. H051393 (6th Dist. Apr. 25, 2024) (unpublished), ex-husband requested the family law judge to modify a Family Code section 2030 need-based fees/costs award to ex-wife after he paid a substantial part of it
Reversal/Modification Delineation Can Be Fuzzy, But It Was A Reversal In This Case. Acting Presiding Justice Segal, in Vines v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, Case No. B327821 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Apr. 25, 2024) (published), quite correctly in our view noted that the issue for when interest runs on an earlier versus corrected attorney’s
