Developer Found Negligent, But Not Hit With Any Damages, Did Not Recoup Claimed Costs Of $97,875.42. A residential tract developer found negligent in a construction defect case by a jury must have felt emboldened because the same jury awarded no damages. Developer then sought to recoup $97,875.42 ($77,660 being expert witness fees) in […]
CCP § 664.6 Settlement Enforcement Provisions Did Not Apply. The Third District in Marriage of Mead and Williams-Mead, Case No. C073814 (3d Dist. Aug. 6, 2014) (unpublished), after almost 10 years of unsuccessful litigation by ex-husband against ex-wife, seemed to finally have had enough. Ex-husband appealed an $80,201 attorney’s fees award to
High Water Mark Of The English Judge’s Contempt Powers We report the following account of Chief Justice Richardson’s exercise of the court’s contempt power in 1631: “Richardson, Chief Justice of C.B. at the assizes at Salisbury in the summer of 1631 was assaulted by a prisoner condemned there for felony, who after his
Requests for Admission Costs Of Proof Sanctions Properly Included Expert Expenses. In Amin’s Oil, Inc. v. Indrogit Biswas, Case No. B242081 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 5, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff employer sued defendant for embezzlement/conversion, with defendant ex-employee suing for unpaid overtime wages. Employee prevailed, eventually awarded $16,215 in wages and penalties. Then,
Constitutional Rights Were Vindicated in Prior Published Decision, So Awarding 10% Was Not Right, Appellate Court Says. Usually, when it comes to the amount of fees awarded, an abuse of discretion standard is hard to hurdle. However, the facts, the facts, as Sergeant Friday, would say (“just the facts, ma’am”), can make all
Arbitrator Decisions Get a Lot of Deference. HP Production, Inc. v. McDonald, Case No. B252175 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 5, 2014) (unpublished) is a case where a former nanny for Adam Sandler’s children lost an arbitration by which she had to disgorge money paid under a former confidential settlement and was hit
Whistleblower Claim Alone Does Not Justify CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery. In Hager v. County of Los Angeles, Case Nos. B238277/B239897 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 5, 2014) (unpublished) (opn. after rehearing), plaintiff whistleblower obtained $2 million in economic damages and $2.5 million in non-economic damages from a jury verdict. On appeal, the public
Innovative Futuristic Award Sustained Upon Review. Marriage of Chan, Case No. B242788 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 4, 2014) (unpublished) is interesting for the “needs-based” futuristic attorney’s fees component awarded to ex-wife under Family Code section 2030/2032. In this one, the family law judge indicated that, for on-going fees incurred by ex-wife,
Counsel for Represented Party Has Special Risks in This Area. In 1st American Warehouse Mortgage, Inc. v. Topa Ins. Co., Case No. 246716 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 4, 2014) (unpublished), attorney representing an insurance adjuster and agent was hit with a $27,334 sanctions award under CCP § 128.7. The defense set this
Allocation, Nonsignatory, and Unsuccessful Work Arguments Rejected. In Cal-Murphy, LLC v. Hines Interests Limited Partnership, Case Nos. A137609/A139772 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 1, 2014) (unpublished), non-prevailing parties appealed some adverse fee rulings, which aggregated about $1.6 million. With a very slight modification, the orders were sustained on appeal. Non-prevailing plaintiffs were
