In De Haas v. Shahinian, Case No. B234726 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 19, 2013) (unpublished), certain parties winning a SLAPP motion and subsequent mandatory fees of $35,559 were disappointed on appeal when the appellate court reversed the SLAPP grant. That meant the fees, as well, went POOF! for these parties. (Panakosta Partners, […]
Marik v. University Village, LLC, Case No. B236248 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 19, 2013) (unpublished) involved a situation where nine defendants were awarded collective $130,137.50 attorney’s fees after successfully defending a prior appeal where an arbitration award was affirmed (inclusive of arbitral fee recovery). Plaintiff appealed. Plantiff did well
Our good friends at the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis (NALFA), especially its executive director Terry Jesse, have some interesting recent posts that we synopsize for your reading enjoyment. LCD Price-Fixing Class Action Likely Garners $308 Million In Fee Awards, Although There Is Some Inter-Plaintiff Counsel Squabbling. In re TFT-LCD (Flat
Witness Fees Issue Should Have Been Presented to Arbitrators, Not to Trial Court in Post-Award Confirmation Stage. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Fenandez, Case No. E055058 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 13, 2013) (unpublished) is a lesson for all winners in an arbitration seeking to recoup costs and expenses after prevailing: present the
Multipliers Also Correctly Denied. After a decades long FEHA litigation involving multiple appeals and four litigation phases, partially winning plaintiff in Fotheringham v. Avery Dennison Corp., Case No. B238282 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 13, 2013) (unpublished) must have felt dismayed when the lower court awarded her only $165,781 in fees (out of
However, Plaintiff Was Entitled to “Defensive Fees” for Prevailing on Defendants’ Cross-Complaint. You might say that this was a “split” decision in the area of CAR form contracts containing a mediation condition precedent to any fee recovery. In Darton v. Park Vasona Gas, Inc., Case No. H037499 (6th Dist. Feb. 14, 2013)
Under Civil Code section 1354, the fee-shifting provisions relating to CC&R disputes between homeowners and HOAs, the prevailing party is determined based on who practically won–identical to the standard under Civil Code section 1717. In Pope v. Oaks of Calabasas HOA, Case No. B237442 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 13, 2013) (unpublished),
Simmons v. Ware, Case Nos. G045886 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 13, 2013) (published; 3-0 decision, author: O’Leary, P.J.) is a situation where a judgment NOV against a vessel owner was reversed on appeal. The trial judge also had awarded the previous winner $193,997.61 is costs under CCP § 998. That
Governor Brown Trying to End Some of the Suits. Don Thompson, in an Associated Press article on February 11, 2013, informs us that Governor Jerry Brown of California has been challenging federal court oversight of the state prison system by highlighting the high price tag coming from private law firms representing inmates, the
Unreasonable Post-Litigation Failure to Settle and Absence of Court-Ordered Change Negated Fee Entitlement Bases. After petitioner lost an administrative hearing on the issue in Wineberg v. City & County of San Francisco, Case Nos. A134143/A134941 (Feb. 11, 2013) (unpublished), he commenced a lawsuit contesting a San Francisco ordinance assessing penalties for false burglar/fire
