He Cites Conflict With Federal Law As Basis For His Veto. As reported in our September 20, 2015 post, AB465—backed by labor unions–was a California bill designed to end mandatory workplace arbitration, applicable to agreements, modifications, renewals, or extensions on or after January 1, 2016. Among other things, it also had a proposed […]
No Problem That 40% Fee Award Paralleled Jury Decision That Prevailing Party Was 60% Negligent. In Stone v. Mitchell, Case No. A132335 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 16, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiffs prevailed won a negligence claim but lost two other claims, with the jury finding plaintiffs were 60% responsible for injuries on the
Debtor Can Obtain Fee Recovery For Successfully Prosecuting Suit For Damages For Automatic Stay Violation. In earlier posts of April 17, 2014, August 29, 2015, and December 22, 2014, we posted on In re Schwartz-Tallard, where the Ninth Circuit determined that 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) authorized attorney’s fees recovery from debtor’s prosecution of
Meyer v. Brown, Case No. D066226 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 14, 2015) (Unpublished)—Family Law. In this one, after an evidentiary hearing in which the court dismissed a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO), the prevailing party recovered $7,500 out of a requested $15,800 in fees. The fee-assessed, losing party appealed, but to no
Net Fee Award To Plaintiff Was $3,709.19, Because She Won (Getting Fees) and Employer Won (Getting Fees). Sharif v. Mehusa, Inc., Case No. B255578 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 14, 2015) (partially published) is an interesting decision which recognizes two things: (1) fee recovery can be determined after offsetting “dueling” fee-shifting statutes; and
District Judge Found Suit Meritless And An Attempt To Stifle Political Speech. 17 U.S.C. § 505 is a section allowing a district judge to discretionarily award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in a copyright infringement case. That section can be a powerful incentive to a plaintiff to make sure it brings a meritorious
Lower Court Discounted Lodestar And Awarded No Multiplier; CCP § 1021.5 Public Importance Analysis Not Required Under FEHA Fee Awards. A FEHA prevailing plaintiff has a strong basis to reap fee recovery under Government Code section 12965(b); however, the trial judge frequently does discount the lodestar and multiplier request, as happened in Lafleur
Trustee Was Not Being Pursued In His Personal Capacity. The lesson from Secrest v. Vaughn, Case No. D066702 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 9, 2015) (unpublished) is clear: how a settlement agreement fees clause is worded and who the parties are in this agreement are crucial in determining whether there is fee entitlement
CCP § 1032 Was The Costs Predicate. Plaintiff in an interpleader action, brought because there apparently was a dispute to entitlement to insurance proceeds between defendants and a bankruptcy trustee, dismissed the action after the trustee abandoned any interest in the proceeds, with the proceeds going to plaintiff. Defendants then moved for and
Need For More Expensive Out-Of-Venue Counsel Was Well Justified By Fee Claimant. In Habitat and Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz, Case No. H040762 (6th Dist. Oct. 6, 2015) (unpublished), both plaintiff and City appealed a lower court’s decision awarding plaintiff fees of about $250,000 (out of a requested $486,800 on the
