Although the appellate court rejected plaintiff’s sole argument on review that future medicals should have been awarded, Hanamaikai v. Howard, Case No. H037346 (6th Dist. Oct. 24, 2012) (unpublished) is a sober reminder of how CCP § 998 is a potent costs-shifting provision in a case where attorney’s fees are not available to […]
We know by now that winning defendants get mandatory, reasonable fee recovery after winning a SLAPP motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c)(1).) However, a reversal of a SLAPP grant invokes our “POOF!” principle on the fee award. Defendants in People ex rel. Strathmann v. Acacia Research Corp., Case Nos. G045390 et al.
Modern Technology Notwithstanding, Reasonably Necessary Versus Convenience Is Judgment Call, With Deference Given to Trial Judge. Complementary to our contemporaneous post on Parks v. Port of Oakland is the appellate court’s affirmance of a decision to disallow certain high technology trial costs in Dodds v. Meng, Case Nos. D058766/D059409 (4th Dist., Div. 1
Other Cases Finding These Costs Nonrecoverable Are Distinguishable. There are two important principles at play in the next case we discuss with respect to recovery of routine costs by a prevailing party: (1) the lower court has a large latitude of discretion to award costs “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation’’
However, Law Partners At Top Firms Now Make 23 Times What Average U.S. Worker Makes, Up From 11 Times From 25 Years Ago. In her October 15, 2012 post at the ABA Law Journal, Debra Cassens Weiss indicates that Bruce MacEwen believes that U.S. law firms are offering cut-rate fees to clients to
We thank our friends at the National Association of Legal Fee Analyses (NALFA) for recent posts on its Attorney Fee Blog, which we have culled and now summarize for you. U.S. Trustee Proposed Guidelines. NALFA’s September 1, 2012 post: The U.S. Trustees Program met in May of this year to discuss proposed
Lower Court’s Refusal to Award Fees Reversed. CCP § 425.16(c)(1) requires a mandatory award of sanctions if the trial court determines an anti-SLAPP motion is frivolous or intended to cause unnecessary delay. Plaintiff in Shukartsi v. Kesselman, Case No. B235190 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 19, 2012) (unpublished) lost a SLAPP motion,
In Gao v. Lin, Case No. B236041 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 19, 2012) (unpublished), client lost his malpractice action, but attorney recovered $18,000 on his cross-complaint for unpaid fees, even though the trial court reduced the requested $23,562 based on duplicative work and inefficiencies. Client’s challenges to the fees award were
Plaintiffs Appealed on Significant CEQA Fire Impacts, Quino Protection, and Water Supply Impacts Issues. Plaintiffs in Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee, Case Nos. D055215/D061030 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 19, 2012) (published) certainly deserve accolades for hanging in there and prevailing on CEQA challenges to fire impacts, Quino protection, and water
Attacks on Jurisdiction Rebuffed, Garnering $15,592 in Fees When Motion to Void Judgment Denied. We commend all litigators to read the unpublished decision in Stone v. Stone, Case No. B239097 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 18, 2012) (unpublished). It involves husband’s attempt to void a settlement agreement/merged judgment reached in a bitter dispute
