Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County v. Madera, Case No. F059857 (5th Dist. Sept. 14, 2011) (unpublished). In this one, which followed on the heels of a published decision affirming and reversing a highly contested CEQA battle, the lower court awarded plaintiffs’ counsel $270,845 and no multiplier out of a requested $460,994.11 (with […]
Lower Court’s Discretionary Refusal Was Not Erroneous. Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 does give a lower court discretionary authority to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in a harassment order proceeding. In Quiggle v. Franke, Case No. D057982 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 16, 2011) (unpublished), the lower court did
Only $6,000 At Issue, But Fee Award Overturned On Appeal. In Giradi & Keese v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B229594 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 14, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff’s counsel got hit with an adverse $6,000 fee award in favor of City of Los Angeles under Code of Civil Procedure section
Aggregate $20,000 Fee Award Affirmed Under CCP § 1021.9. Here is one for our category “Trespass,” which involves Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.9, a fee-shifting statute allowing for an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party “[i]n any action to recover damages to personal or real property resulting from trespassing on
Defense Alone Would Not Result in Fee Exposure, but Frivolous Counterclaim Did Open Up Exposure. Under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), a franchisee can be subjected to an attorney’s fees award in favor of a franchisor if franchisee brought a frivolous PMPA action. (15 U.S.C. § 2805(d).) However, what happens if the
However, Cost Determination Had To Be Remanded Because Plaintiffs Did Achieve More Success on Appeal. In Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera, Case No. F059153 (5th Dist. Sept. 13, 2011) (certified for partial publication; cost discussion published), a vigorously contested CEQA battle–this being the second appeal—the Court of Appeal affirmed a
Court of Appeal Affirms Fee Denial Under Special Shifting Provision and Private Attorney General Statute. After winning a tax refund issue relating to California tax treatment of repatriated dividends paid by certain of its subsidiaries, Apple, Inc. moved to recover attorney’s fees of $683,492.73 from the State on two independent grounds. The trial
For those of you wanting to know about updates on Code of Civil Procedure section 998 issues (especially as the fees/cost-shifting provision impacts fee and costs), co-contributor Mike has authored an article that has been published in the September 2011 edition of The Orange County Lawyer. Enjoy.
As reported in a couple of articles in the August 2011 California Lawyer, we see how the recent economic downturn has affected fee arrangements and law firm employment in California. Looks like nonhourly billing arrangements are on the increase in California. Nonhourly fee arrangements have increased by a percentage of 43% of
Breadth of Language Made the Difference in this One. Here is an interesting one that confirms that the breadth of language in a fees clause can make a difference. It especially did here, where the parties waived arbitration rights but the fees clause, but the use of “proceeding” language was broad enough to
