Up For Grabs: $16 Million Class Counsel Fee Award in the Balance on Remand. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the next case, sent a strong message to class action attorneys that you cannot structure class representatives’ incentive awards conditioned on their support for the settlement, especially where the incentive awards exceeded […]
Allocation Doesn’t Necessarily Have to be Proportional in Nature. Cason v. Cason, Case No. D059676 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 22, 2013) (unpublished) deals with allocation of attorney’s fees and costs in a partition case. The germane statute, CCP § 874.040, has a double-barrel measure–the lower court shall apportion partition costs among the
Matter Remanded to Demand Costs Under Routine Costs Statutes, Rather than Broader FEHA Costs-Shifting Provision. FEHA does have a broad fee-shifting/costs-shifting statute, even covering expert witness fees and generally tilted in favor of winning plaintiffs. Plaintiff won two FEHA counts through a special jury verdict, but defendant moved for a JNOV on the
About $1 Million in Fees Awarded in Bullet Train Settlement. Although the bullet train proposal in California has generated a lot of controversy, Juliet Williams of the AP, in an April 19, 2013 article in The Orange County Register, reports that a Sacramento County Superior Court approved a settlement of a challenge from
In Savas v. Gerber, Case Nos. B236101/B237539 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 18, 2013) (unppublished), a three-eighths owners of a loan was disappointed when they did not receive a fee recovery against five-eighths owners after the nonjudicial foreclosure of some property in which they had proportionate loan holdings. Their appeal was unsuccessful, too.
Basis Was Failure to Disclose Separate Property, But 1101(h) Only Applies to Community Property Nondisclosures. Husband was behind the “eight ball” in this one. He was hit with fees/sanctions under Family Code section 1101(h) for $245,850, under Family Code section 2107 for $150,000, and under Family Code section 217 for $250,000. On
Defendant’s Rule 68 Offer Was Inartfully Drawn, Not Precluding Lanham Act Fees. As reported by Chris Marshall in the April 16, 2013 on-line edition of Courthouse News Service, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg (N.D.Cal.) concluded on April 12, 2013 that a plaintiff blogger bringing a declaratory relief suit was entitled to $37,650.25 in
Defendant Was Neither a Party to the Property Owner-HOA Settlement Nor Resulting Arbitration. Owner hired contractor to convert a hotel it owned into apartments and retail space. A few years later, the apartments were converted to condos and sold to the public, with an HOA being formed. Owner had to disclose certain construction
Defendants won a SLAPP motion and were awarded partial fees under the mandatory fee-shifting statute, although some in pro per attorneys were denied some fees under Trope. So, the other side appealed, mainly contending that the fees/costs motions were untimely. Appealing party was not successful in Zhang v. Sugars, Case No. B243152
$20.055 SLAPP Fee/Costs Recovery Affirmed, Plus Appellants Get Hit With Appellate Sanctions Of Over $61,200 For Bringing Frivolous Appeal This next case reminds us that you need to give up after you or your client is on a losing string, especially once a couple of appeals tend to establish an adverse trend. Appealing
