Decision Is A Primer To Show Abuse Of Discretion. Pacific Building Development, Inc. v. Kensington-Fair Oaks Associates Joint Venture, Case No. H038685 (6th Dist. Nov. 20, 2014) (unpublished) is a good primer for any litigator wanting to appeal the denial of “cost-of-proof” sanctions under CCP § 2033.240. Although the reversal of the […]
A 2-1 Decision, With Majority Holding Novation Defense Fell Within Fee Clause Ambit, And With Dissent Arguing No Fees Entitled Under Option Fees Clause So Trial Court Properly Denied Fees. At its core, Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC, Case No. A138306 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 20, 2014) (published) is
Actions Resulted in Younger Generations Getting $1 Million in Distributions Where Prior Distributions Only Went To Senior Generation Beneficiaries. Neither the lower nor appellate courts in Gaynor v. Bulen, Case No. D064872 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 20, 2014) (unpublished) had much trouble with awarding certain former trustees of a trust attorney’s fees
Although Different Judge than “Merits” Judge Heard Fee Motion, Appellate Court Questions Whether More Scrutiny Is Required, But Affirms Even Under A More Rigorous Standard. Coalition for Adequate Review v. City and County of San Francisco, Case Nos. A135660/A138856 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 19, 2014) (unpublished) is an interesting case primarily involving
$18,900 Fee Award Goes POOF!, But Opponent’s CCP § 128.7 Motion Correctly Denied Where Defendants Trimmed Fee Request Down After Getting Safe Harbor Documents. This next opinion, Ashegian v. Beirne, Case No. B254020 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 19, 2014) (unpublished), is interesting because it deals with a first impression issue relating to
Record Did Not Support the Argument that the Lower Court Abused Its Discretion. Marriage of Sa and Martino, Case No. H039875 (6th Dist. Nov. 19, 2014) (unpublished) demonstrates how it will be hard for a family law litigant to overcome the deferential abuse of discretion standard when trying to challenge an additional needs-based
Matter Remanded for Lower Court to Gauge Reasonableness of Requested Fees and to Rule on Positive Multiplier Request. A citizen leaves the voting booth. 1944. Lewis Walker, photographer. Library of Congress. A lower court denied a fee request entirely as to two litigants successfully opposing a preelection challenge to Measure N (a
However, Not All Was Lost–Fee Recovery Had To Be Reconsidered Under Catalyst Theory On Remand. AG Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District, Case No. H039559 (6th Dist. Nov. 17, 2014) (unpublished) is an interesting decision in the CCP § 1021.5 private attorney general area, the result largely depending on the unique procedural
Party Losing Party Could Not Prove Joint Tortfeasor Status in Indemnity Action. In Zoura v. Burns and Sons Trucking, Inc., Case No. D063469 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 17, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiffs suffered a summary judgment in an indemnity action against defendant, with defendant also awarded “costs of proof” sanctions award under CCP
Sears v. Baccaglio Decision Found Not Viable CCP § 1032 “Prevailing Party” Law. This one is an interesting one under section 1717/CCP § 1032 routine costs jurisprudence. Here, client at first suffered a default judgment of $86,676.88 in favor of former attorney, but client obtained relief from the default judgment from the
