Unapportioned Offer Was Invalid Because Joint And Several Liability Was Not Established On All Claims. This next case, Bush v. Loiacono, Case No. D065979 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 29, 2015) (unpublished), is an interesting CCP § 998 decision arising out of a lower court’s refusal to tax $14,005.22 in expert witness fees […]
Inflated Requests and Unnecessary Work Efforts Predominated, With District Judge Not Sure Defense Work Was Probative To Combat Unnecessary Plaintiff Work As Far As Gauging Reasonableness Of Plaintiffs’ Fee Request. Although we are only going on media reports, U.S. District Judge George H. Wu of the Central District of California in Red, et
Plaintiffs’ Did Not Represent Himself, But Clients; However, No Allocation Required Based On Intertwined Exception. Defendants were not happy when a trial judge not only enforced a settlement agreement under CCP § 664.6 but also awarded attorney’s fees of $40,349.50 based on a settlement fees clause. Their appeal of both rulings was unsuccessful
California Supreme Court Treats Attorney’s Fees And Costs Alike With Regard To Losing FEHA Plaintiffs. Our California Supreme Court, in Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., Case No. S213100 (Cal. Supreme Ct. May 4, 2015) (published), has decided that losing plaintiffs in FEHA cases should be treated alike with respect to a
End Result Was Denial of Most Fee Recovery To Judgment Creditor, Although Routine Costs Were Allowed To The Creditor. In the companion cases of Devereaux v. Clontz, Case Nos. H037998 and H039324 (6th Dist. Apr. 30, 2015) (unpublished), judgment creditor sought attorney’s fees and costs in connection with post-judgment collection efforts against judgment
Matter Reversed and Remanded to Determine Value of Attorney’s Lien in Trust. Novak v. Kay, Case No. B256889 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 28, 2015) (published) involved an attorney with broad contractual attorney’s fees language in a retainer letter with a client who died but who was determined to be a pretermitted spouse
Defendant Did Prevail, And Both Objective/Subjective Prongs Of Fee-Shifting Statute Were Satisfied. For a non-prevailing plaintiff in a trade secret misappropriation under the California Uniform Trade Secret Act (CUTSA), where objective speciousness and a subjective improper purpose is demonstrated, the prevailing defense can be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under Civil Code
Trial Judge Improperly Cut Stipulated Fees By Almost 50%. In Leeman v. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC, Case No. 142321 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 28, 2015) (unpublished), the parties reached a settlement agreement in a case arising under Proposition 65, which does allow recovery for attorney’s fees by a successful party under
Court of Appeals Overturns Its Prior Adoption Of Hindsight, “Material Benefit” Standard In Pro-Snax. In Barron & Newburger, P.C. v. Texas Skyline, Limited, No. 13-50075 (5th Cir. April 9, 2015) (published), a bankruptcy judge allowed only about $20,000 of a $130,000 fee compensation request by Chapter 11 bankruptcy counsel under 11 U.S.C. §
Individual Parties Were Only Secondarily Linked To LLC Members. In Lintz v. Blue Goose Development, Case No. G048325 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 24, 2015) (unpublished), a lower court denied an attorney’s fees request brought against two individually sued parties under an LLC operating agreement fees clause, which provided: “In the event that
