District Court’s Fee Entitlement Ruling Was Preclusive On Fees, But Not Necessarily On Routine Costs Recovery. UMG Recording, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, No. 09-55902 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2013) (published) was an affirmance of a district court’s decision to deny recovery of attorney’s fees under the Copyright Act to a “winning” […]
Hold On For The Answers. Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., Nos. 10-35137 et al. (9th Cirl Mar. 6, 2013) (published) faced some interesting issues in a situation where a venued diversity action had a “loser pay” statutory fee recovery provision under Alaska law–the venue–but the contract between the parties specified
Well, the Ninth Circuit has somewhat sent out a warning: plaintiff with a “slim or none” copyright infringement case–in light of a meritorious fair use defense–needs to rethink or get hit with attorney’s fees under section 505 of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §505), which allows a district court to grant to the
Her Oral $15,000 Add-on Request for a Consultant Not Adequately Supported. In Marriage of Preim, Case No. A130791 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 13, 2013) (partially published; fee discussion not published), wife was found statutorily ineligible to receive spousal support based on her history of domestic violence toward her husband, a determination affirmed
Business and Professions Code section 7108.5 and Public Contract Code 7107 are prompt payment statutes, designed to make sure that subcontractors are promptly paid for services/work/materials once the contractor receives either progress payments or retention proceeds on public works construction projects. However, each provision does have a good faith/bona fide dispute only triggering
KO for HOA. Boy, have we told you that homeowner associations or homeowners can belly ache about fee awards to a prevailing party under Civil Code section 1354(c) [fee shifting statute applicable to enforcement of CC&Rs] or Civil Code section 1717 [fee shifting clause applicable to contractual fee clauses]. Well, homeowner got the
Often times, the abuse of discretion standard of review dictates results in cases involving fee or fee-shifting cases. That was the situation in Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v. Rick Concrete Constr. Co., Case No. D058134 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 8, 2013) (unpublished). There, the insured requested $185,915 in Brandt fees,
Unlike Other Situations, Side Agreement Was Not Integrated With Stock Purchase Agreement Requiring Mediation First, Resulting in $162,983.81 Fee Recovery to Prevailing Party Under Side Agreement. In many cases we have posted on, Civil Code section 1717 worked to deny a fee recovery because several agreements were part of an integrated transaction, and
Trial Court Did Not Abuse Discretion In Finding Trust Liable For 100% of Referee’s Fees. Probate Code section 2642(b) and California Rules of Court, rule 7.702 allow attorneys who render legal services to a guardian or estate (or both) to file a petition for extraordinary compensation, if certain substantiation is met and the
Diaz v. Los Angeles County MTA, Case No. 236856 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 5, 2013) (unpublished) demonstrates that appellate courts will not flinch from reinstating a reduction in appellate printing expenses as a routine costs if the reduction was arbitrary in nature. Here, the lower court reduced a printing cost because
