It’s A Draw, in Long-Awaited Kirby Decision. The California Supreme Court, in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., Case No. S185827 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Apr. 30, 2012) (certified for publication), decided that neither Labor Code section 1194 (a one-way fee shifting provision in favor of employees) nor Labor Code section 218.5 (two-way fee […]
Suing Beneficiary Not Entitled to Fee Recovery Given Trustee’s Actions Were Found to Not To Be in Bad Faith. Lowe v. Holk, Case No. E053071 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 26, 2012) (unpublished) involved a fight between trustee son and beneficiary daughter over certain assets of father and trustee son’s administration of the
Lack of Allocation Was Fatal for Brandt and RFA Issues. Insured prevailed in a suit against auto insurer for making repairs rather than declaring the car a total loss. However, insured was denied requested fees of $500,000 ($250,000 plus a 2 multiplier) even though claiming them under one of three theories: (1) California’s
Plaintiff’s Case Was Brought and Prosecuted Without Reasonable Cause, But Remanded So Discretion Could Be Exercised. Above: The Federal Theatre presents "I want a policeman" by Rufus King & Milton Lazarus. Fastest moving comedy of the season : First time in San Diego. Federal Arts Project. 1936-41. Library of Congress. Code of Civil
Sanction Imposed After Oral Request At Hearing Overturned on Appeal. In Kleytman v. Pechonkina, Case No. A130779 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 24, 2012) (unpublished), ex-husband was assessed $1,500 in attorney’s fees as a Family Code section 271 sanction for filing a motion for reconsideration that was denied. Usually, that might not be
Second District, Division 3 Follows Division 7’s Barnett Decision. In our May 28, 2010 post, we discussed Barnett v. First National Ins. Co. of America, 184 Cal.App.4th 1454 (2010), where the Second District, Division 7 overruled a prior decision and held that a CCP § 998 offer made jointly to a husband and
Turner Law Firm Wins Full Attorney’s Fee Request At Trial Court Level. We would like to thank and extend kudos to Keith Turner of the Turner Law Firm for winning an interesting attorney’s fees battle under the fee-shifting provision contained in the Davis-Stirling Act (Civ. Code, § 1354(c)). His client defendant Eric
Third District Distinguishes Otay River In The Process. Here is one for all of you procedural buffs, involving a dismissal of an appeal of a motions for reconsideration/473 relief of a fee request denial after the appellant beat back a motion to compel arbitration. The problem here was that the earlier motion to
Appellate Court Divergence on First SLAPP Prong Drove Reversal of SLAPP Fee Award. SLAPP fee awards against defendants/cross-defendants are allowable, but not mandatory as against losing plaintiffs–losing defendants’ efforts must be found to be frivolous in nature, a much higher burden of proof. In the next case, the trial court denied cross-defendants’ SLAPP
Remand to Determine What Portion of Attorney and Paralegal Time Was “Administrative” in Nature. Collins v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B228882 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 20, 2012) (certified for publication) is a class action case where two class representatives on behalf of a class obtained a judgment-based common fund recovery
