56% Of These Dollars Went To Outside Counsel, With Comprehensive Management Programs Leading To Even Less Spending. As reported by a recent issue of the ABA Journal, the Huron Consulting Group came out with its 2014 IMPACT Benchmarking Report after its fifth annual survey of law departments for 2013, encompassing survey data from […]
$387,750 In Fees Requested, With Appellate Court Determining That Some Reasonable Amount Should Be Awarded. Co-contributor Marc calls this next case “shock, countershock, equilibrium.” Co-contributor Mike agrees with his assessment of the result in Heller v. Carmel Partners, Inc., Case No. B253512 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 4, 2015) (unpublished). Commodore W.H.
Below Market San Diego Hourly Rates, Combined With Explanation Of Work Effort, Sustained Result. In Galicia v. Spencer, Case Nos. D063758/D064441 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 27, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a SLAPP motion to the defense based on certain state immunities to civil/constitutional rights allegations, which then resulted in a $28,448 mandatory
Multiple Bases Supported Sanctions Award. You gotta really look at the facts when appealing a discretionary sanctions award. If they bad, you might want to forego and go onto more productive ventures. Archer v. Archer, Case No. B254750 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 26, 2015) (unpublished) teaches that well. This one involved
Subsequent Tax Costs Ruling Incidental to Prior Judgment. Plaintiff in Dinaali v. Rohani, Case No. B245126 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 2, 2015) (unpublished) lost an interference/fraud lawsuit against the defense, which obtained a summary judgment on December 4, 2012 with an award of costs to be established through a cost memorandum. Plaintiff
Wife Also Failed to Separate Out Argument or Provide Citation to Authority. The Third District’s decision in Marriage of Gartman, Case No, C071200 (3d Dist. Feb. 2, 2015) (unpublished) shows the dangers of a judgment roll appeal as well as failing to follow appellate rules on presentation/support of written arguments. In this
Broader Clause Might Have Resulted In Different Result. This next case shows that care must be taken in crafting the scope of a fees clause, especially in a settlement agreement. The party successfully enforcing a settlement agreement was denied fees given that the fees clause was not broad enough to allow for the
Unfairness of Using Privilege as a Shield Justified Writ Issuance. In Anten v. Superior Court (Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin), Case No. B258437 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 30, 2015) (published), the appellate court issued writ relief in determining that a nonsuing, joint client cannot shelter relevant communications as privileged in a suit
Rule 43(d)(ii) Is The Trap. American Arbitration Association’s (“AAA”) Commercial Arbitration Rule 43(d)(ii) provides: “The award of the arbitrator may include: … (ii) an award of attorneys’ fees if all parties have requested such an award or it is authorized by law or their arbitration agreement.”(Emphasis added.) Paul R. Wood and Thomas
Timeliness And CRC 5.427 Noncompliance Arguments Rejected. In Schwarzinger v. Reuter, Case No. A140153 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 29, 2015) (unpublished), an appellate court reluctantly reversed a custody order on due process grounds. However, it rejected challenges to a fees/cost order to respondent grounded in arguments that the fee petition was
