Appellate Court Refused to Inject Civil Rights Fee “Frivolity” Standards Into SLAPP Mandatory Fee Recovery Statute. In Williams v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B234100 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 8, 2012) (unpublished), plaintiff was hit with post-appeal SLAPP fees of over $40,000 when defendants successfully defended a SLAPP grant in a […]
Trap for the Unwary: Order Denying a Motion for Reconsideration Is Not An Appealable Order. The administrator of an estate requested authorization to pay his attorney for both ordinary and extraordinary services to the estate. The trial court granted these requests in a formal order. One of the relatives of the decedent filed
Prevailing Parties Get Them, With No Frivolity Requirement Necessary, But In Pro Per Litigant Dodged Appeal Sanctions. Koresko v. De La Rosa, Case No. F064375 (5th Dist. Nov. 7, 2012) (unpublished) reinforces the fact that a prevailing party in routine civil litigation does receive routine costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b).
You Be The Judge, Recent California Real Property Journal Article Adds More Swill to the Controversy. Okay, folks, there always has been a controversy on the added effectiveness (or expense) associated with ADR alternatives, primarily mediation and arbitration. We can report that even more gas has been added to the fire of this
Late Opposition to Default Proceeding by Plaintiff Did Not Change Result. The Second District, Division 6, in Towne v. Joaquin, Case No. B222077 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 6, 2012) (unpublished), affirmed a trial court’s order that plaintiff be awarded $3,270 in fees and costs as a condition of vacating a default judgment
Landlord’s Rejection of Equipment Transfer Settlement Offer Did Not Impact Fee Recovery, Because Equipment Transfer Worth Less Than Rental Damages. In Via Montana, LLC v. Pearson Realty, Inc., Case No. F061975 (5th Dist. Nov. 6, 2012) (unpublished), landlord won a little over $202,411 for unpaid rent and restaurant tenants won $3,550 for a
Civil Rights: Ninth Circuit Guidelines For Fee Awards Under EAJA The Ninth Circuit’s “Attorney Fees and Recoverable Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA)” includes interesting guidelines for practitioners seeking fees under EAJA. It establishes that eligible parties encompass an individual client having a net worth under $2 million. (28 U.S.C.
Instead, Injunctive or Declaratory Relief Usually Will Materially Alter the Parties’ Relationships. The United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous, per curiam summary decision (no merits briefing/no oral argument), reversed the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ denial of attorney’s fees in a case where a plaintiff won injunctive relief (but not even nominal
District Judge Rejected $1.7 Million In Fee and Costs Requested by Plaintiff’s Attorneys. District Judge Michael Telesca, in Mendez v. The Radec Corporation, Case No. 03-cv-6342 (W.D.N.Y.), recently nixed plaintiffs’ attorneys’ request for a $1.7 million fees/costs award in a Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) class action. The class obtained a settlement recovery
Offset Applicable for Entire Work of Attorney During Litigation, Not Just Discrete Work. Parrish v. Comm’r of Social Security Administration, Case No. 11-35332 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2012) (published) is an interesting case involving the interaction of Social Security Act (SSA) and Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) provisions allowing attorneys to receive
