Special Attention Needs To Be Paid In Validation Proceedings—Appeal Deadlines Are Different. Validation proceedings have their own time deadlines, including times to appeal. In County of Alameda v. Alameda County Taxpayers Assn., Case No. A167040 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 29, 2024) (unpublished), a litigant appealed a postjudgment costs order in a […]
Section 998 Offer Was Proper, So Expert Witness Expenses Properly Awarded. In Tayefeh v. Kern Medical Center, Case No. F085746 (5th Dist. Jan. 29, 2024) (unpublished), the lower court and appellate courts affirmed certain costs for prevailing defendants for certain out-of-state deposition expenses and expert witness costs. Those determinations were affirmed on appeal. Because
Choosing Litigation Over Arbitration Means The Party Did Decide To Forego Fees. Roberts v. Crandell, Case No. B320951 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 26, 2024) (unpublished) is yet another unpublished decision with reasoning which supports the view that a litigant choosing to litigate in court, rather than arbitration (where the contractual fee clause only
In The End, Only $10,000 In Fees Awarded Against Employer. This next case addresses many issues we have posted on over the years—specificity in CCP § 998 offers and seeking reasonable fees on claims which should be allocated but are not. Wu v. ABC Lucky Transportation, Inc., Case Nos. B323494/B326800 (2d Dist., Div. 1
Based On Unique Circumstances Of The Litigation, Fee Request Was Premature Until The Overall Merits Were Decided. Equity does factor in attorney’s fees awards, as Hot Rods, LLC v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Case No. G061449 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 25, 2024) (unpublished) makes clear. This contentious litigation between the parties involved
Facts Here Were That Employer Obtained Stay Of Court Case, But Did Not Timely Pay Arbitration Fees. Although the procedural context was a little different because employer obtained an arbitration stay and then failed to timely pay fees for a contractual arbitration against employee, the 4/1 DCA followed the lead of Second District cases
Opinion Illustrates How Valid Section 998 Offer Can Reduce Fee Exposure Under A Fee Shifting Statute. On December 31, 2023, we posted on Kinney v. City of Corona, Case No. E079840, which was unpublished at the time. We can now report that Kinney was certified for publication on January 24, 2024. It demonstrates how
Court Of Appeal Observed That Cross-Defendant’s Frivolous Motion To Quash Was Sanctionable, But Remanded So The Technicality Could Be Cured. Do not think that you can make factual misstatements or concealments in a motion to quash for lack of personal service; both trial and appellate courts will find this behavior sanctionable. That is
General Discovery Statutes Did Not Justify The Reversed Result, And The Absence Of An Order Did Not Support Sanctions Under CCP § 1987.2. Although discovery sanctions are generally affirmed under an abuse of discretion standard, that is not always the case against third parties because different standards apply. Agnone v. Agnone, Case
Reason Was That Owners Sought Overly Inflated Fees And Costs, With Fees Not Allowable Because They Did Not Relate To Construction Performance Under B&P § 1029.8. In a very contentious dispute between residential property owners and carpentry contractors, the trial and appellate courts in Romero v. Brocca, Case No. B316715 (2d Dist., Div. 1
