However, Lower Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Enter Merits Judgments Following Voluntary Dismissal. McVeigh v. Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc. (MacLeod), Case No G049461 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 11, 2015) (unpublished) is somewhat a study into subject matter jurisdiction in the SLAPP context, involving convoluted proceedings which really did not change […]
Dueling Fee Motions Really Come Close To Negating Each Other. Iota Five, LLC v. Dobron, Case No. G050738 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 11, 2015) (unpublished) was a case where there were fee clauses in guaranties, with the two defendants—represented by the same counsel—gaining a complete victory on a sham guaranty defense as
Hard To Believe. We say thanks to all of our readers and followers. Our inaugural post was on May 11, 2008, so this looks like today is our seventh blog “birthday.” Can’t believe it, and keep following us – whoever you are! – and thanks for doing so. Mary Harris “Mother” Jones
Third Circuit Follows Four Other Circuit Courts On “Catalyst Theory.” In Templin v. Independence Blue Cross, No. 13-4493 (3d Cir. May 8, 2015) (precedential), the Third Circuit determined that litigants who catalyze the defense to change conduct in ERISA cases can discretionarily collect attorney’s fees even if no judgment is entered—different than “prevailing
Federal Circuit Bar Association Study So Concludes. We have posted before about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Octane/Highmark (134 S.Ct. 1749 and 134 S.Ct. 1744 (2014)), where district judges were given more discretion in determining if patent cases were exceptional for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees to prevailing, accused infringers. A recent
On Remand, Trial Judge Can Try To Correct. In the SLAPP area, a trial judge can award attorney’s fees against a party losing a SLAPP motion if the motion is deemed to be frivolous. However, the frivolity determination has to meet certain standards under prior (now resurrected) CCP § 128.5. The order
Case Revolved On Meanings Of “Generated” And “Received.” An attorney working on medical malpractice cases felt cheated when it received no “bonus” compensation after the cases settled well after his termination from the handling law firm. Unfortunately for him, he lost his bonus claims after years of litigation. The Seventh Circuit Court
$2.8 Million Fees Deemed Enough. As recently reported in the media, a Central District of California district judge nixed class counsel’s request for an enhanced fee recovery in the KIA/Hyundai fuel efficiency MDL case. Instead, he awarded $2.8 million, but nixed a request for $6 million more on a multiplier basis.
However, Trial Judge Did Not Abuse Discretion By Reducing Lodestar And Awarding No Multiplier–$145,747 Fee Recovery Affirmed. In Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara, Case No. H039707 (6th Dist. May 7, 2015) (published), a plaintiff winning a CEQA case—with the lower court acknowledging a development project was invalid without an
Plaintiff’s Appeal of SLAPP Grant Against Another Defendant Did Not Stay Fee Proceedings and Lack of Reporter’s Transcript Showed No Abuse of Discretion In Fee Amount Awarded. In Shankar v. Shoffner, Case No. B255399 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 29, 2015) (unpublished), a plaintiff who was SLAPPed for bringing a malicious prosecution claim
