However, Costs for Outside Counsel Research in the Guise of Expert Witness Needed to be Reevaluated. In Azoulay v. Valley View Medical Clinic Inc., Case No. G044942 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 3, 2012) (unpublished), defendants won a partnership dispute against plaintiff physical therapist, and the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to tax […]
Ninth Circuit Affirms Fee Determinations Upon Review. In In re Thomas (Thomas v. Namba), 2012 WL 1008654 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2012) (unpublished), the Ninth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s remand award of fees where counsel “de-lumped” block billed entries, but nonetheless still applied a 10% reduction to remaining lumped fees for which
However, No Significant Benefit of Statewide or Countywide Concern Was Vetted In Win. Our local Santa Ana appellate court, in City of El Cajon v. County of San Diego Local Agency Formation Com., Case No. G045021 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 28, 2012) (unpublished), affirmed a lower court’s refusal to award attorney’s fees
$3,750 Sanctions Award Against Counsel Violated Due Process Standards. The Second District, Division 6, in North County Watch v. County of San Luis Obispo, Case No. B231090 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 27, 2012) (unpublished), reversed imposition of a $3,750 sanctions award on counsel for failure to comply with court rules for prosecution
Marriage of Csupo, Case No. B227959 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 27, 2012) (unpub). In this one, the trial court terminated the husband’s obligation to continue paying attorney’s fees under a pendente lite order, a determination affirmed on appeal after husband paid $30,000 under the earlier $180,000 fee mandate, after wife apparently fired
$127,616.90 Fee Award Evaporated. Defendants won a summary judgment against plaintiff contractor based on the determination that plaintiff could not recover because it did not have a contractor’s license. The trial court later awarded defendants attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 of $127,616.90. That fee award went POOF! when the appellate court
One Can Prevail For Purposes of Getting Postarbitration Fees Even If the Arbitrator Awarded No Fees For Arbitration Work. Justice Ikola, on behalf of a 3-0 panel in Toal v. Tardif, Case No. G044823 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 29, 2012) (unpublished), drew an important distinction for parties involved in arbitration:
$22,000 Winner Obtained Fees Despite Not Obtaining Over $716,000 in Sought-After Damages. Where no party under Civil Code section 1717 is a clear winner, the court has discretion to determine the prevailing party. That principle was at play in the next opinion, even though the prevailing parties only won 3% of the total
Second District Panel Reverses $2,350 Cost Award to SJM Winning Defendant. In Baker v. Mulholland Security and Patrol, Inc., Case Nos. B232172/B234487 (2d Dist. Div. 8 Mar. 28, 2012) (certified for partial publication), the appellate court reversed a $2,350 expert witness fee cost award against a losing FEHA plaintiff, after defendant won summary
Trustee Did Not Surmount Deferential Abuse of Discretion Standard Applicable to Fee Denial. Crookshanks v. Crookshanks, Case No. B231580 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 26, 2012) (unpublished) is a sad probate case where a trustee was denied some “extraordinary” attorney’s fee requests for administering a trust. Instead, the trial court determined that trustee’s
