Trial Court Asked For Discussion On Five Issues And Interactive Oral Argument, Which Negated That The Motion Was Frivolous. In Gazal v. Echeverry, Case No. B327668 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 29, 2024) (published), defendants lost a SLAPP motion and then appealed, with the appeal being unsuccessful. Plaintiff filed a motion to recover $106,730 […]
Opinion Validates Our Recommendation In Many Posts To Separately Appeal An Adverse Fee Order Or Appeal Both Rulings In A Combined Appeal If Possible. In Williams v. Doctors Med. Center of Modesto, Inc., Case Nos. F084700 et al. (5th Dist. Mar. 27, 2024) (published), plaintiff separately appealed the granting of a SLAPP motion and
Only A Trial Judge Can Order Discovery Sanctions Under Uninsured Motorist Arbitration. We did know that uninsured motorist arbitrations are a niche area for practitioners in the area. That is confirmed by the result in Ourfali v. 21st Century Ins. Co., Case No. B324150 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 27, 2024) (unpublished). There, in
Also, Plaintiff’s Suit Benefitted Herself, So No Section 1021.5 Fees Were Warranted. Nairobi v. Watkins, Case Nos. A164665 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 28, 2024) (unpublished) shows the potency of a successful defense CCP § 998 offer: plaintiff’s $101,768.89 jury award got reduced to just $3,772.87. The lower court also denied plaintiff’s
Reasonableness Of Fees Will Be An Issue On Remand. Justice Viramontes, in Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc., Case Nos. B322697 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 25, 2024) (published), confronted a situation where an employee recovering $7,659.93 for minimum wage and overtime claims in a long jury trial then sought $296,920
Rules Of Professional Conduct And Wording Of Retainer Agreement Guided The Result. Both ex-attorneys and ex-client took draconian positions in a case involving what fees were owed by ex-client under a flat fee retainer agreement involving criminal and divorce proceedings. Attorneys claimed they were entitled to the whole $350,000 retainer even though they did
Deadline Is Strict; § 1287.97 Is Not Preempted By The FAA. In Jane Doe v. Lawyers for Employee and Consumers Rights, Case No. B330052 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 21, 2024) (unpublished), former employer sought to press arbitration against ex-employee although it paid late arbitration expenses in derogation of the 30-day deadline under CCP
Family Code Section 271(a) Mandates Consideration Of Ability To Pay. Although we have posted on this before, Family Code section 271(a) mandates that a family law judge takes into consideration a litigant’s ability to pay when assessing section 271 sanctions. In Jayasuriya v. Jayasuriya, Case Nos. A166864 et al. (1st Dist., div. 3 Mar.
No Clients Were Harmed, So Enforcing The Agreement Was Fine Under The Circumstances. In Liberty Law Office, Inc. v. The Bloom Firm, Case Nos. A165269 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 20, 2024) (unpublished; opn. modified and rehearing denied), arbitrators, the lower court, and the appellate court all agreed that a Joint Venture
Fee Entitlement Was Justified Under Davis-Stirling Act And Vexatious Litigant Statutes. We have posted many times on how attorney’s fees and costs are the “tail that wags the dog in litigation” in homeowner-HOA disputes, resulting in hefty awards for the prevailing party or resulting in a large expenditure fees even though no one is
