998 Offer Validity Is Gauged At the Time of the Offer, Not On After Events. What we take away from Smith v. Wagner, Case No. B245821 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 19, 2013) (unpublished) is that CCP § 998 offers must be evaluated based on the state of pleadings when the 998 offers […]
Incorrect Legal Standards Used by Lower Court in Fixing Fees/Incentive Award. Clear Sailing? S.S. Vestris disaster. c1928. Library of Congress. Ruiz v. Calif. State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau, Case Nos. A136275/A136395 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 20, 2013) (partially published; discussion of why fee/incentive awards reversed, not published) involved a class action
First Two Nonrecoverable Items, in Ninth Circuit Ruling, Depart From Federal Appeals Court Determinations to the Contrary. The Ninth Circuit in Kalitta Air L.L.C. v. Central Texas Airborne System Inc., Case No. 13-15015 (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2013) (published) decided that “taxable” routine costs do not include (1) pro hac vice admission fees,
. . . Doesn’t Have To Raise In Complaint, With District Court Deciding the Issue. Smith v. JEM Group, Inc., Case No. 11-35964 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2013) (published) is a case deciding that a plaintiff opposing arbitration can challenge the validity in an opposition to compel arbitration by the defense, rather than
Bad Faith Not a Necessary 271 Predicate. The Fifth District in Marriage of Franco, Case No. F065488 (5th Dist. Dec. 17, 2013) (unpublished) affirmed a $1,500 attorney’s fees award against wife under Family Code section 271, a sanctions-type provision allowing fee shifting where a party tries to discourage settlement in family law matters.
All of the Fees Could Be Deemed in Preparation for Trial. A trial court, much to a homeowner association’s chagrin (actually the insurer defending the HOA), denied its motion to tax costs, which was predicated on the argument that all expert witness fees claimed by the other side should not be awarded as
Substantial Fee Award Went POOF! Estancia Coastal, LLC v. KB Home Coastal, Inc., Case No. D062219 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 16, 2013) (unpublished) involved a big fight between a developer hit with $6.5 million in developmental mitigation fees against assignee of a land owner giving an option to developer. The
Inadequate Record Plus “Incurred” for Prevailing Party Status Rules Sustained the Result. Plaintiff was defensed in an real estate investment lawsuit, including a breach of contract claim involving an LLC operating agreement with a fees clause. One of the defendants received a $466,440.32 attorney’s fees award for prevailing in MB Urban Properties, LLC
Fraud, Arbitrator Impartiality, Arbitrator Misconduct, and Arbitrator Exceeding Power Type Claims Could Not Be Found Immune From Review Based On Contractual Provision. In In re: Wal-Mart Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation, Case No. 11-17778 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2013) (published), a district court confirmed an arbitration award allocating attorney’s fees in a
. . . After All, Prevailing Party Status Had To Await Determination On a Retrial. So, what happens when defendants appeal a denial of Civil Code section 1717 fees against one plaintiff, who successfully obtains an appellate reversal because an affiliated party was not added as a party pursuant to a motion to
