Dissenting Justice Would Have Required Parsing Out of Fees on Separate Contracts. In Universal Church v. United Broadway Real Estate Co., LLC, Case No. B233904 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 11, 2013) (unpublished), landlord appealed when tenant won a hotly contested fair market calculation dispute under a lease, with the trial court awarding […]
C – : “Show Us Your Work,” Ninth Circuit Tells Fee-Deciding District Judges. The Ninth Circuit in Padgett v. Loventhal, Case No. 10-16533 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2013) (published) reversed a $500,000 fee award (out of a requested $3.2 million) and $100,000 cost award (out of a requested $900,000) after one civil rights
Trial Court Did Not Err in Apportioning Some Fee Recovery Out With Respect to Successful Mechanic’s Lien Claim. HJH Construction, Inc. v. California Bank & Trust, Case No. E053033 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 7, 2013) (unpublished) involved a failed real estate development project in Palm Springs where general contractor received a $690,710-plus
Mandate of CCP § 685.080 Is Clear. In Conservatorship of McQueen, Case No. A134337 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 2, 2013) (unpublished), a conservator for an elder recovered a financial elder abuse judgment against an attorney, who subsequently paid the judgment in full, including interest. Conservator then moved for $57,681.90 in attorney’s fees
Court of Appeal, Facing Some Gnarly Procedural Issues, Finds Trial Court Denial Was Correct. Gunn v. Superior Court (Mai Kai Community Assn.), Case No. G046989 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 7, 2013) (unpublished) was a situation where an HOA voluntarily dismissed without prejudice an action after a homeowner early on relented and allowed
Reconstructed Time Sheet Evidence Went Only to Weight, Not Admissibility Of Fee Submissions. In Cates v. John Chiang, as State Controller, Case No. D060570 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 7, 2013) (published), plaintiff received $2,011,844 in fees under a private attorney general “catalyst theory” (lodestar at a blended hourly rate of $451 for
Harris v. City of Santa Monica, Case No. S181004 (Cal. Supreme Court Feb. 7, 2013) (published) is must reading for FEHA practitioners involved in a mixed motive discriminatory case. It adopts a “substantial motivating” factor test for termination, but holds that an employer proving the same decision would have been made absent such
Here is a quick two-fer from the Third District: Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. C067812 (3d Dist. Feb. 4, 2013) (published): Judgment was entered against buyer in a defective motor home dispute with a lender to whom an installment sales contract was assigned by dealer. The trial court also awarded
U.S. District Judge Anthony Battagin (S.D. Cal.) has awarded more than $12.4 million in attorney’s fees to Qualcomm Inc. in a four-year patent infringement suit brought by Gabriel Technologies Corp., which we surmise was what is popularly called a “patent troll” case, after finding that the claims were baseless. The district judge also
The First District, Division 5 in Lucky Unified Properties Investments, Inc. v. Lee, Case No. A132914 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 4, 2013) (partially published) provided clarity on the issue of when interest begins to run on postjudgment fee/costs awards where the fees/costs were incurred postjudgment or on appeal. The appellate court determined
