No Lock On Trope Waiver, But Court Finds Fees For Other Attorneys May Not Be Barred By Trope; Nonsignatory Entitled to Fees Based on Alter Ego Theory. Here is an interesting unpublished decision from the Second District, Division 6–interesting because it parts company with the holding in Lockton v. O’Rourke, 184 Cal.App.4th 1051 […]
Merely Objecting to Preliminary View in Statement of Decision Not Enough. Landlord won modest damages in case, but was denied an award of attorney’s fees in a statement of decision giving a preliminary view on the prevailing party issue, a statement drawing objections by both sides and resulting in an eventual judgment stating
Ruling So Held in Strange Peremptory Challenge of Deciding Trial Judge. The next case occurred in the context of a rather strange procedural framework. In Rolla v. Speidel, Case No. D05783 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 22, 2011) (unpublished), the original trial judge granted a peremptory challenge and the case was assigned
$8.6 Million and $3.1 Million Defense Fee Recoveries Affirmed on Appeal. For those of you wanting to justify substantial fee awards under Civil Code section 1717, Linear Technology Corp. v. Tokyo Electron, Ltd., Case No. H035713 (6th Dist. Nov. 22, 2011) (certified for publication) is must reading. There, in a breach of
Prompt Payment Statute Did Not Mean Fees Went to Plaintiff Winning Some Money. In Angotti & Reilly v. Alexander Group, Case Nos. A127917/A128743 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 21, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff sued for unpaid contractor fees under a construction contract with a fees clause, and defendant/cross-complainant countersued for defective work. Plaintiff obtained
Plaintiff Did Not Have to Pay $21,000 in Expert Witness Fees. Plaintiff in Sanchez v. Molina, Case No. F059653 (5th Dist. Nov. 21, 2011) (unpublished), who sought $700,000 in damages and lost a jury trial based on lack of causation (although negligence was found), had rejected a defense $10,000 offer under CCP §
Proper Substantiation and Reduced Hourly Fee Clinched the Result. A trial court awarded $52,848 fee award to a defendant who non-suited a plaintiff in a legal malpractice action at trial. Plaintiff challenged the fee award as excessive. Not so, said Presiding Justice Mallano–in a 3-0 opinion–in Jackson v. Kim, Case Nos. B219116/B221686
Timing of Arbitration is the Result Here. Janopaul+Blocks Cos., LLC v. Superior Court, Case No. D059282 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 17, 2011) (certified for publication) is an interesting Cumis situation where an insurer did not agree to defend until 2 years after tender and, before there was a ruling on a Civil
Ninth Circuit So Rules In Case of Statutory Construction. Under the Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA), disability benefits are provided to federal employees who are injured on the job, subject to an employee bringing a civil case against a responsible third party and refunding to the U.S. any FECA benefits received by the
Noerr-Pennington Sham Exception Did Not Need to be Hurdled By City, Resulting in Affirmance of $226,928 Fee Award. The Sixth District in Vargas v. City of Salinas, Case No. H035207 (6th Dist. Nov. 18, 2011) (certified for publication), a case that had gone up to the California Supreme Court and back through the
