Substantial Sanctions Remanded for Exercise of Discretion Because District Judge Did Not Believe It Had Authority To Reduce For Impecuniousness Concerns. The Ninth Circuit in Haynes v. City & County of San Francisco, Case Bi, 10-16327 (9th Cir. July 23, 2012) (published) faced review of a $362,545.61 sanctions award against an attorney pursuing […]
Objective Speciousness of Claim Results From Lack of Evidence – Plaintiff’s Belief That Claim Might Be Supported Doesn’t Cut the Mustard Under California Civil Code section 3426.4, “[if] a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious
Trial Court Did Not Err In Reducing Worker’s Compensation Lien To Pay Attorney’s Fees Plaintiff Collins was an employee of the crew of Hulcher Services, Inc., a contractor hired by railroads to clear tracks and rerail train cars following derailments. He was severely injured when a block from a Hulcher crane fell on his
GlaxoSmithKline Gets Bang for the Buck in Alternative Billing Arrangements. As reported in a July 5, 2012 article in The American Bar Association Journal, pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) saved tens of millions through value-based, non-hourly billing arrangements. By the end of 2011, 68% of GSK’s legal spending was predicated on alternative fee billing
Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Award Also Upheld on Appeal. Marriage of Pitto and Behrendt, Case No. A126802/A127429 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2012) (unpublished), involving a relatively short marriage, does reinforce certain lessons for us, basically two in number. Number 1 is this. A substantial $354,542 fee award was sustained
Appellate Court Tells Everyone That Some Claims May Not Be Compensable. Homeowner Association (HOA)/homeowner disputes seem to be very acrimonious. However, depending on who prevails, there may be fee exposure under Civil Code section 1354 (CC&R enforcement) or Civil Code section 1717 (contractual fee enforcement). But, each side may have to wait until
Cross-Complaint Was A Separate, Simultaneous Action Subject to Mediation Condition Precedent. As it now stands, a litigant subject to a CAR form contract often faces an attorney’s fees clause requiring mediation first except for certain situations (lis pendens action, unlawful detainer, and a few others). Obviously, this restriction applies to a litigant commencing
Assignment of Interests in Probated Estates Focuses on Probate Code section 11604. Part of doing this blog is that we get to learn different substantive areas. Today, we learned something in the area of probate law. In Estate of Castrillo, Case No. A133446 (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 28, 2012) (unpublished), an
Defense Might Prevail In End, So Let’s Wait and See. We predicted in our May 27 and June 5, 2012 posts that Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc., 206 Cal.App.4th 515 (2012) would be an oft-cited decision when dealing with prevailing party status for fee purposes where there are interim successes
Both Sides Appealed, Both Sides Did Not Gain Anything Upon Review. In County of San Bernardino v. San Bernardino County Public Attorneys Assn., Case Mp/ E051576 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 26, 2012) (unpublished), County lost a SLAPP motion and was assessed $49,500 through an adverse mandatory fee award (even though the defense
