Contractual Bargain Resulted in a Waiver and Enforced. Marriage of Guilardi, Case No. H035037 (6th Dist. Nov. 7, 2011) (certified for publication) pitted the fees clause in a marital settlement agreement (MSA) against the Family Code section 2030 needs-based statutory scheme. The contractual bargain in the MSA won out. The MSA addressed […]
$147,121.25 Fee Award and $5,722.63 Costs Award Affirmed. In Hawthorne Machinery Co. v. Theo H. Davies & Co., Ltd., Case No. D057331 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 4, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained a declaratory relief judgment in favor of defendants, a determination affirmed in a prior appeal with the conclusion that plaintiff prevailed
Also, Non-compensatory Sanctions Over $5,000 Likely Needs Criminal Contempt Protections. Under Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991), district judges have inherent power to sanction for bad faith violations during proceedings. However, there are limits to how far this can go, especially when a substantial sanction over $5,000 is involved.
Steve Pappas, who lost to Doreen Farr in his quest for Santa Barbara’s 3rd District Supervisorial seat by a slim number of votes, was hit with attorney’s fees of around $525,000 (after factoring in an arithmetic error) for losing a case against her. Now, Mr. Pappas is appealing the amount of the award
$2.755 Million in Fees Was the Ultimate Result Sustained Upon Review. Encarnacion v. 20th Century Ins. Co., Inc., Case No. B222313 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 31, 2011) (unpublished) was an arduous fight between certain parties and an insurance company over breach of contract/insurance bad faith relating to a $5.6 million wrongful death
No Indemnity Clause Truly Involved, With 1717 Reciprocity Principles Governing the Construction of the Fees Clause. Here is another one to add to our category “Indemnity,” which deals with the issue of whether a true indemnity clause gives rise to fee exposure (not!) or whether a true fees clause does (you bet!).
Public Interest Nature of Litigation Was Evident, Rules High Court. For all of you interested in private attorney general statute jurisprudence, the late breaking decision of the California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc., Case No. S183372 (Cal. Supreme Court Oct. 31, 2011) is must reading. Plaintiffs in
Co-Contributor Mike Participates on a Panel at this Conference. Although it was supposed to be held earlier in the year, the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis (NALFA) is holding its 2011 Attorney Fee Conference at Loyola Law School on November 17, 2011 between noon-5 p.m. You can gain MCLE credit if you
October 25, 2011 Oral Argument Heard on Walker and Humphries Cases. In our May 30, 2011 post, we discussed Walker v. Giuffre, a New Jersey appellate division decision which disallowed a 45% fee enhancement in a state consumer fraud case based on the perceived more rigorous analysis applied to multipliers by the U.S.
Here is one demonstrating that appellate courts do not blindly rubber stamp trial court fee awards, simply because a side did prevail. Especially so, when there are multiple lawsuits being litigated and the winning attorney did not clearly apportion out work spent on a parallel, but legally unrelated, action involving the same clients.
