Court Reduced Requested Fees by 40%. If you are on appeal of a fee award, unless a fee entitlement issue is involved, the hardest thing to do is challenge the reasonableness of the fee award unless shocking in nature on a facial basis. That is so because reasonableness of the fees is an […]
Remanded To Decide If Multiplier Appropriate Upon Reversal of State Claim Giving Rise To Positive Enhancement. The Ninth Circuit in Chaudhry v. Interfaith Communities United For Justice and Peace, Case No. 11-55820 (9th Cir. May 19, 2014) (published) is an interesting decision involving federal civil rights/attendant state law (CA Civil Code section 52.1)
Trial Court Has Broad Discretion in Determining Amount of Fees. Appealing litigant in Hopper v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., Case No. B245705 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 16, 2014) (unpublished) argued that $13,026 in attorney’s fees recovery should be excluded because the particular attorneys who performed the challenged work did not provide a declaration—with the
Must Show Objective Speciousness and Subjective Bad Faith. Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist., Case No. D063980 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 15, 2014) (unpublished) contains a good discussion of the review standard applicable to a lower court ruling denying attorney’s fees to a prevailing SLAPP plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c)(1). In this
No Clear Fee Entitlement In This One. Individual who was deleted from an arbitration award, because he was neither served nor consented to an arbitration, was frustrated because the lower court denied him fees under an arbitration agreement provision and AAA Rules in Fujian Peak Group, Inc. v. Huang, Case No. D063296 (4th
Appealing Party Confused Pretrial and Post-trial Prevailing Party Cost Recoupment. Mt. Shasta Tomorrow v. County of Siskiyou, Case No. C072035 (3d Dist. May 14, 2014) (unpublished) is a case where a CEQA petitioner claiming financial hardship had its case dismissed for belatedly moving to waive costs of certifying the administrative record (A/R). The
No Apportionment Required Because Everything Involved Same Facts/Misconduct Allegations. Winning litigant in Sanders v. Garfield Langmoir-Logan, Case No. G048524 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 14, 2014) (unpublished) won an elder abuse claim, which has a fee-shifting statute in favor of the prevailing party under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a). The lower court
Respondent Satisfied Pragmatic Test for Prevailing under 1717. In Adelman v. Adelman, Case No. B248303 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 13, 2014) (unpublished), respondent was awarded fees after successfully litigating the issue of whether appellant vacated a property and left it in “broom clean” condition. Respondent proved that she had to incur clean-up
Lodestar Plus 1.3 Positive Multiplier for Defense Work Sustained on Appeal. Aerotek, Inc. v. The Johnson Group Staffing Co., Inc., Case No. C070832 (3d Dist. May 13, 2014) (unpublished) was somewhat of a train wreck from the suing plaintiff’s perspective. Train wrecked by Zapata. Library of Congress. Plaintiff company sued a
2/5 Does So in Unpublished Decision. In Madenlian v. State of California, Case No. B233898 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 13, 2014) (unpublished), the 2/5 DCA agreed with its colleagues on 2/8 DCA that expert witness fees cannot be awarded to a prevailing FEHA defendant unless the discrimination action was frivolous, unreasonable, without
