. . . . Meaning Plaintiff Should Recover Fees Below And On Appeal. Although plaintiff won both at the trial and appellate levels as far as defeating the defense SLAPP motion, plaintiff did well to cross-appeal from the denial of attorney’s fees in LA Taxi v. Independent Taxi Owners, Case No. B255909 (2d Dist., […]
Failure To Oppose Fee Request Sealed The Deal. In Wofford v. Hollicks, Case No. B254518 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 20, 2015) (unpublished), an in pro per plaintiff brought a civil rights action based on a car impounding against the LAPD. He lost a summary judgment motion and did not oppose a request for
Neither One Conferred A Fee Entitlement Basis To Defendants, Requiring Reversal Of Fee Award. In Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc., Case Nos. A140890/A141393 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 20, 2015) (partially published; fee discussion not published), defendants were awarded contractual attorney’s fees under an indemnity provision and a guaranty. That ruling
$2.15 Million Was The Fee Request. City of Richmond, through counsel Morrison & Foerster, obtained a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a contract breach suit brought by the Guidiville Rancheria of California, a federally recognized Indian tribe, and affiliate developer of a canceled casino project. Unfortunately for the losing plaintiffs, there
Lots of Procedural, Allocation, and Reasonableness Challenges Rejected. In Save Westwood Village v. Luskin, Case No. B257354 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 18, 2015 posting) (unpublished), defendants brought a SLAPP motion, triggering plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss them from the case. However, the trial court determined the merits of the SLAPP motion, granted it,
10% Per Annum Rate Governed Costs Award. In our June 19, 2014 post, we discussed Chodos v. Borman, 227 Cal.App.4th 76 (2014) (Chodos I), where the appellate court refused to sustain a multiplier were the attorney had no retainer agreement with the client such that the lodestar, with two stipulated adjustments, adequately compensated
California Choice of Law Principles Governed, With Ninth Circuit Believing California Supreme Court Would Decide 1717 Evinces Fundamental State Policy. In one of our early posts on June 11, 2008, we talked about Civil Code section 1717—which makes unilateral contractual fees clauses reciprocal in nature—and its interplay with choice of law decision—decisions considering
Defendant Simply Having Contradictory Version Of Events Does Not Negate Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions. Grace v. Mansourian, Case No. G049590 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 17, 2015) (unpublished) is interesting because our local Santa Ana court, in a 3-0 opinion authored by Justice Thompson, reversed the denial of costs-of-proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420 for
Fee Recovery Properly Denied, With Lower Court Correctly Construing Jury Special Verdict. In Letizia v. Wentworth, Paoli & Purdy, LLP, Case No. G050132 (4th Dist. Div. 3 Aug. 17, 2015) (unpublished), cross-complainant obtained a jury verdict in her favor, with the jury making these specific findings: (1) cross-complainant was terminated by cross-defendant as
This Is An Update For Our December 20, 2014 Post On An Unpublished Appellate Decision. On December 30, 2014, we posted on Paletz v. Adaya, a Second District, Division 3 unpublished decision affirming most of a substantial attorney’s fees award of $2.1 million in favor of plaintiffs, except for a minor reallocation issue
