Client’s SLAPP Motion Was Properly Denied. In Fink & Associates v. Finato, Case No. B325604 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 19, 2024) (unpublished), a lower court denied former client’s attempt to SLAPP former attorney’s cross-claims to recover a contingency fee after a settlement was reached. The 2/1 DCA affirmed because the nonpayment of monies […]
Hourly Rates Claimed By L.A. Attorneys Were Reasonable. What is the price for plaintiff losing a dispute on an $18,000 EDD payment worth against a defendant who prevailed on this issue in civil litigation? The answer was provided in Golden Noodles, Inc. v. Souk, Case Nos. B322781/B327031 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 18, 2024)
Attorney Did Not Represent Client So As To Practicing In Unauthorized Fashion And Pre-Arbitration Fees Fell Within Broad Arbitration Clause. Arbitration fee awards are hard to overturn, as 1600 Barberry Lane 8 v. Mikles, Case No. D081775 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 17, 2024) (unpublished) establishes that well, in line with prior posts under
Family Code Section 6344 Applies Retroactively. In Dragones III v. Calkins, Case No. B329659 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 17, 2024) (published), the 2/7 DCA confronted whether Family Code section 6344, effective 2023, made it easier for a prevailing petitioner to obtain fees and harder for a prevailing respondent to obtain fees in actions
Those Costs Not Justified. Prevailing party, after seeking expert witness fees under a successful CCP § 998 offer, sought some fees for one expert testifying on legal conclusions. Well, those costs were not allowed in Kreitzman v. Mercury Casualty Company, Case No. B325854 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 16, 2024) (unpublished). The reason is
Same Rule Applies To Routine Costs Which Are Not A Matter Of Right. This case is a good reminder for practitioners representing prevailing parties to seek discretionary costs through a noticed motion, not just through a cost memorandum. In Neeble-Diamond v. Hotel California By The Sea, LLC, Case No. G061425 (4th Dist., Div.
Rather, The Test Is Whether Whey Were Reasonably Necessary To The Litigation At The Time Incurred. In Garcia v. Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Case No. E079859 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 8, 2024) (published), after dismissal by plaintiff of an initial suit against a manufacturer for an allegedly defective mattress, manufacturer moved for costs
Also, Fee/Costs Award Under Indemnity Agreement Only Recoverable Against Ex-Husband, A Signatory To The Agreement, But No Fee Exposure Under The Third-Party Indemnity Provision; Needs-Based Fees Paid To Both Spouses Are Separate Debts Of Husband For His Need-Based Fees And Community Debts For Fees To Both Spouses. Acting Presiding Justice Moore, in In re
It Found No Language Precluding The Result, Disagreeing With Cruz On This Issue. Unpublished decisions can be very instructive. A recent one, Knowles v. Longwood Mgt. Corp., Case No. B314165 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 3, 2024) (unpublished), is very instructive—prevailing PAGA defendants may be able to get routine costs under CCP
No Substantial Modification Was Obtained By Adding Costs To A Judgment. In Crokin v. Primrose, Case No. G061959 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 3, 2024) (unpublished), authored by Presiding Justice O’Leary, the 4/3 DCA agreed that adding routine costs, attorney’s fees, and interest to an original judgment through an amended judgment did not reset
