Only Parties Are Aggrieved, Requiring Intervention or Opting Out, For Standing Purposes. This case, we predict, will generate a lot of controversy in the class action area, especially as to objectors assuming they as class members had standing to appeal fee orders. In Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., Case No. D067091 (4th […]
Baughn v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection, Case No. C072462 (3d Dist. Mar. 11, 2016) (Unpublished). In this one, plaintiffs were awarded SLAPP fees by the lower court under the authority that the defense SLAPP motion was frivolous in nature under CCP § 425.16(c)(1). The problem here was that the lower court
Statute Did Not Talk About Fees. Civil Code section 3334, subdivision (a) provides, in part: “The detriment caused by the wrongful occupation of real property . . . is deemed to include the value of the use of the property for the time of that wrongful occupation . . . and the costs,
Defendant Did Not Prevail, For Routine Costs Purposes, By Obtaining Dismissal In This Situation. The California Supreme Court, in DeSaulles v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, Case No. S219236 (Cal. Supreme Court Mar. 10, 2016) (published), decided that a voluntarily dismissing plaintiff who received settlement money from the defendant was a prevailing
. . . At Least For Now, Depends On What Happens On Remand. Okay, all of our readers. To be a prevailing party, you have to wait until the “end game.” That means that partial reversals on appeal, especially as to different parties, well may await a further determination in a retrial before
35% In Reduction By Trial Judge Found To Be Sufficient. Attorney’s fees can be a true leveling field, even for well-heeled clients. The next case, IMT Capital 11525 Blucher v. NMS Properties, Case No. B255823 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 4, 2016) (unpublished), presented a situation where a party won an easement dispute
However, One Party Did Clearly Prevail, But Got No More On Appeal. Both trial and appellate courts are faced with situations where some parties prevail to some extent, but then have to determine if one or more truly did prevail on a convincing basis. In Marina Pacifica Homeowners Assn. v. So. Cal.
… Should Usually Be Granted, But New Concurring Opinion Does Not Blame Trial Judge For What Transpired. On February 10, 2016, we posted on the unpublished decision of Mooney v. Superior Court, Case No. H041500, which considered whether attorney’s fees awarded against ex-wife for a settled statement option on appeal dispute was proper.
Here, Prevailing Party Sought CCP § 128.5 Sanctions, Such That Fee Request Proper In Responding Papers—No Notice Of Motion Under Other Provisions Required. Meraz v. Coleman, Case No. B262725 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 3, 2016) (unpublished) illustrates that some successful fee awards may well depend upon the manner in which the fee
Failure To Mention PAGA Fee Entitlement, Much Less Segregate Fees, Resulted In Overturn. This next post is an ouch! In Makabi v. Gedalia, Case No. B261005 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 2, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff employees sued two defendant employers for a host of Labor Code wage/hour violations and four plaintiffs sued
