Requested Hourly Rates Reasonable and Lack of Specific Challenges Doom Fee Challenges. The appellate court in DiMare v. Taylor, Case No. B237373 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 5, 2013) (unpublished) expressed frustration that it could not put an end to a fee division dispute between two attorneys representing plaintiff in a wrongful death-products […]
The Second District, Division 4 in Nevarrez v. San Marino Skilled Nursing and Wellness Centre, Case No. B235372 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 5, 2013) (published) reversed an Elder Abuse Act substantial jury verdict, even though the plaintiff also prevailed on a Patient’s Bill of Rights claim, with both schemes having a fee
Clause Only Concerned Property Ownership, Not Litigation Between Parties. Plaintiff won substantial damages from Bekins in a dispute involving property loss resulting from a move from one storage facility to another. Plaintiff then sought recovery of attorney’s fees under a fees clause in the Bekins contract. The lower court said “no,” prompting an
Three Challenges Rejected by Appellate Court. In Guess v. The Significance Foundation, Case No. D060100 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 5, 2013) (unpublished), individual, an officer and director of a company, prevailed in a government civil rights action seeking injunctive relief, as did the company. Then, a dispute arose as to whether individual was
Remand to Determine if Offseting is Appropriate; Each Note Claim Judged on its Own. Williams v. Meyer, Case No. B243491 (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 4, 2013) (unpublished) involved a debtor plaintiff/cross-defendant and creditor defendant/cross-complainant having dueling claims on two notes delivered in favor of defendant and secured by plaintiff’s house (with fees
Denial of Fee Recovery Reversed and Remanded. On December 16, 2012, we posted about a “Case Under Review,” Higher Taste, Inc. v. City of Tacoma, where U.S. District Judge Settle (W.D. Wash.) denied attorney’s fees under the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because he did not believe that plaintiff non-profit’s
Plaintiff Eventually Lost at Trial Based On Expert Proof of No Harm on Nuisance Claim. Plaintiff, in Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide, Case No. B234296 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 29, 2013) (unpublished) (Birke II), had won an earlier appeal resulting in a published decision (Birke I) by which a without leave demurrer on
Trial Court Did Not Err in Awarding A Higher Hourly Rate to Attorney Providing Postarbitration Services for Prevailing Client. In Fuchs & Associates, Inc. v. Lesso, Case No. B241384 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 29, 2013) (unpublished), former attorneys sued client to collect a claimed additional $647,688 in unpaid fees under a retainer
Defense Has No Obligation to Produce Its Fees Expended Absent a Proper Discovery Request, Appellate Court Rules. McElroy v. City of San Diego, Case No. D059562 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 30, 2013) (unpublished) is a “meaty” decision on a lot of cross-over attorney’s fees issues. So let us begin. The underlying
CCP § 1021 Trumped Civil Code § 1717 Rules, With Plaintiff Prevailing “Overall.” Under Civil Code section 1717, a prevailing party can receive attorney’s fees based on prevailing under a contract claim, even though losing tort claims, if the fees clause is limited to contractual claims. However, if the fee clause is broader,
