Case Did Not Involve Brown Act Open Meeting Issues, So Fee Grant Did Not Fall Within Narrow Exemption. Here is a wild one, at least the facts. The grant of fees to the prevailing SLAPP defendant was another matter, an award affirmed by the appellate court in Tri-City Healthcare District v. Sterling, Case […]
No Prejudice In Arguing All Defendants Should Be Liable/Failure to Claim Tort of Another Fee Damages At Trial Dispositive Against Fee Petitioner. DeSantis v. Oakmont LLC, Case No. A128220 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 7, 2012) (unpublished) is a wild case on appeal involving parties suing over a failed real estate transaction, with
Marriage of Marash & Whitman, Case No. H036639 (6th Dist. Dec. 10, 2012) (unpublished) could be a precursor of a lot more reversals of needs-based attorney’s fees awards in dissolution proceedings. In this one, the appellate court reversed a lower court’s award of attorney’s fees to an ex-wife based on Family Code
Our POOF! principle was illustrated very poignantly in Veronese v. Lucasfilm Ltd., Case Nos. A129535/A131600 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 10, 2012) (published). There, plaintiff won a $113,830 compensatory discrimination verdict against the defense, and later garnered a prevailing party $1,157,411 fee recovery (almost 10x). On appeal, the defense won the
Settlement Agreement Fees Clause Preempted Needs-Based Award, Most Likely. Marriage of Gurnee, Case No. D059672 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 6, 2012) (unpublished) is an interesting unpublished case exploring the tension between statutory needs-based fee shifting statutes in the dissolution area and contractual settlement fees clauses that conflict with the statutory regime.
Oops In Optimum Processing Solutions, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., Civ. No. 1:09-cv-1098-TCB (N.D. Ga.) [Doc. 271 filed Sept. 14, 2012), District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. has decided that Acacia Research subsidiary Optimum Processing Solutions, L.L.C. (OPS) will have to pay fees and expenses under F.R.Civ. P. 37 for Intel’s motion to compel
Jones Day Suing Vizio Inc. in Washington Federal Court Over $6.7 Million Receivable. If you think you are having receivable problems, Jones Day has a big one to contend with. As reported by Zoe Tillman on December 4, 2012 at The Blog of Legal Times, JD is suing former client Vizio Inc. in
The pragmatic end result of this next appellate decision is hard to argue with; after all, I think most of us (attorneys, judges, and the public) would think that a filing of an acknowledgment of satisfaction means just that–finito, case ended, no more exposure. In Essex Ins. Co. v. Professional Building Contractors,
Clients’ Section 998 Offer Was Invalid Based on Absence of Acceptance Language, So Expert Witness Fees Recoverable. Law Offices of Roger E. Naghash v. Roy, Case No. G044785 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 4, 2012) (unpublished) is a wild dispute between former clients and an attorney arising from clients’ prior loss of a
In appellant’s third trip to the Court of Appeal after losing a jury trial against her former employer, she argued that the trial judge’s failure to grant her motion to tax costs on appeal was error. Third time was not the charm in Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc., Case No. G046122 (4th
