Arbitrator Finality Was “Trumped” By Clause Not Permitting Legal/Factual Errors. In Cardiology Specialists Medical Group, Inc. v. Rangappa, Case No. D069092 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 30, 2016) (unpublished), doctor and his former employer arbitrated a dispute about who paid for return of a monetary advance, sign-on bonus, and start-up expenses in an […]
Read On … For the List! Ramos v. Romero, Case No. E062963 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 30, 2016) (unpublished) hopefully will bring a smile to many California state litigators as far as routine costs which can be recouped when they are not expressly prohibited or not expressly listed, invoking trial court discretion to
City & County of San Francisco v. Price, Case No. A139024 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 29, 2016) (Unpublished). Wife challenged a $1,200 sanctions award presumably made under Family Code section 271 after husband made the request orally at a hearing. She argued this was a due process violation, but the appellate court
Indemnification And Fee Premium Provisions Did Not Surmount ASARCO. In Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2158, 2169 (2015) [discussed in our June 19, 2015 post], SCOTUS held that bankruptcy estate counsel cannot obtain fee recovery for defending the propriety of their fee applications under 11 U.S.C. § 330. Although
California’s Civil Code Section 1717 Reciprocity Principles Trumped New Mexico Choice Of Law Clause Where Foreign Residents Only Involved. Bank of America, N.A. v. Lahave, Case Nos. B253931/B256219 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 21, 2016) (unpublished) involved a loan made in New Mexico to a New Mexico resident, which was guaranteed by California
Postjudgment Fees Also Reversed, But Expert Witness Fees Sustained Based On Failure To Separate Appeal The Postjudgment Award. In Kayne v. Mense, Case No. B254975 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 25, 2016) (unpublished), defendants were found to have breached a fiduciary duty to plaintiff (giving rise to compensatory and punitive damages) and found
Fee Activities Were Not Within the Purview Of Either Statute. Debtor/employer eventually “defensed” a bankruptcy nondischargeability action brought by certain employees arguing employer was an ERISA fiduciary for purposes of the “fiduciary” exception to bankruptcy discharge, a determination found to not legally be sustainable under a prior Ninth Circuit opinion (meaning employer was
Landlord/Tenant: Sevier v. Ghannoura, Case No. B259542 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 22, 2016) (Unpublished). Tenant won compensatory damages of $21,865 against landlords for illegal entry into common areas of a rental apartment without proper notice. There was a fees clause, requiring mediation as a condition precedent, but tenant satisfied that by requesting
ESI Costs Claimed Were Not Narrowly Targeted To Those Allowable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) allows district judges to tax certain enumerated litigation expenses as “costs,” including “the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” (Keep in mind
Plaintiff Winning Meal Periods Claim Not Entitled To Fees, But Entitled To Routine Costs. In the last few months, there have been several cases interpreting the public policy exception to arbitral finality. Ling v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., Case No. H039367 (6th Dist. Mar. 25, 2016) (published) is another one on this
