Plaintiff in Mariani v. Harbor Pointe Owners’ Assn., Case No. A130360 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 24, 2013) (unpublished) was miffed at a $36,151 fee award under Civil Code section 1354 after losing a homeowner voting controversy. Homeowner appealed, arguing that the HOA was not enforcing CC&Rs, but only a promise not in […]
Although the decision actually involves interesting issues about the constitutionality of legislative enactments relating to redevelopment agencies, Cal. Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos, Case No. C064907 (3d Dist. Jan. 24, 2013) (published) did hold that a $315,622.74 fee recovery under California’s private attorney general statute had to be reversed. Reason? The financial burden element
No “Complete” Frivolousness Shown. Defendant losing a SLAPP motion was hit with attorney’s fees of $19,500 for filing a completely frivolous proceeding in Hayes v. Hutchison, Case No. B237556 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 24, 2013) (unpublished). A frivolous defense motion can be the subject of fee recovery in the SLAPP area under
Trade Secrets Damages/Fees/Costs Go POOF!, But Copyright Defense Fee/Costs Recovery to MGA Sustained On Appeal. In a remarkably short decision penned by Chief Justice Kozinski on behalf of a 3-0 panel, the Ninth Circuit has taken some things away and let other things stay in the oft-posted-upon Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.,
Our POOF! principle was in play in Arntz Builders v. City of Berkeley, Case No. A128147 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 23, 2013) (unpublished). City had won a $1.29 million fee awarding under a Public Contract Code. However, that award had to be vacated when the appellate court reversed a summary judgment grant
Our Tally Shows Over $1.66 Million In Sanctions Sustained On Appeal. If our readers want to read a truly wild case on discovery abuse (especially regarding electronic discovery, deposition noncandidness, and third-party witness tampering), you gotta read Robin Singh Ed. Services v. Blueprint Test Preparation, Case No. B204775 et al. (2d Dist., Div.
Entitlement, Apportionment, and Amount Challenges Rejected. In Sinclair v. Katakis, Case No. F060497 (5th Dist. Jan. 23, 2013) (unpublished), $750,000 in attorney’s fees (out of a requested $1.2 million) and $33,141.67 in costs were awarded against defendants in a battle involving CC&Rs as well as notes and deeds of trust with contractual fee
Although “bad facts make bad law,” sad facts also make the law, good, bad, or indifferent. The next two cases we discuss demonstrate that truth. Marriage of Feakins, Case No. A132338 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 22, 2013) (unpublished). In this one, ex-husband out of a 17 year marriage was incarcerated for
Court Discusses “Substantial Justification” Defense to an Award of Fees Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(d). Although the old adage “bad facts make bad law” may apply in some contexts, that is not the case here. Rather, bad facts may lead to good law, which is what happened in In re Machuca, Jr., 2012
2013 Will Be Off to a Slow Start. As reported by Debra Cassens Weiss in a January 15, 2013 post in the ABA Journal online version, a recent report by Citi Private Bank’s Law Firm Group and Hildebrandt Consulting says that the boom years of 2001-2007 and double-digit profit growth of law firms
