Mattel Will Post Big Bond, But Not What MGA Wants. In this continuing saga where MGA won substantial compensatory/punitive damages and attorney’s fees/costs against Mattel, the current issue centers on the appellate undertaking to be posted by Mattel while it appeals to the Ninth Circuit. As recently reported by Amanda Bronstad in The […]
United States District Court of Nevada Follows Monty Python and the Holy Grail as Precedent In Monty Python and The Holy Grail, the bridge troll who is the keeper of the Bridge of Death is cast into the Gorge of Eternal Peril when he fails to answer his own riddle. Boing Boing’s co-editor, Cory
998 Offer Was Made in Good Faith In Robbins v. Essex Management Corp., Case No. B221857 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 16, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff rejected a $200,000 998 offer and was defensed after a jury trial. Defendant then filed a memorandum of costs seeking a substantial sum, being successful in obtaining a
Judgment Debtors’ Failure to Timely File Motions to Costs Was Expensive–Resulting in Affirmance of Renewal Costs/Fee of Almost $750,000 As the “latest chapter of a 10-year saga,” judgment debtors (former clients) appealed a lower court’s grant of fees/costs to judgment creditor law firm in a total of sum of about $750,000 under postjudgment
Bratz Doll Maker Colliding with O’Melveny & Myers in L.A. State Court. As reported by Amanda Bronstad in an August 1, 2011 post at The National Law Journal, O’Melveny & Myers has sued its former client MGA Entertainment Inc., the eventual winner in a federal lawsuit against Mattel over the Bratz doll. O’Melveny
African American Farmers Class Action Settlement Fee Request. As posted by Mike Scarcella on August 9, 2011 at The Blog of Legal Times, class action lawyers representing a class of African American farmers in a loan discrimination suit against the Government are requesting $90.8 million in fees, the maximum allowed under the terms
Last Hurrah Is That No Side Was a Prevailing Party for Fee Recovery. In what the appellate court itself described as an “epic contract dispute” over San Francisco property ownership between two sides litigated since 1999, the conclusion is a poignant one and one for which this blog was first inspired. No one
RFAs Were Of Central Importance and Denials Were Not Reasonable in Nature. The Cadle Company II, Inc. v. Bell, Case No. A128685 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 11, 2011) (unpublished) was an appeal of a $4,860.51 costs-of-proof sanction under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.20, which authorizes the lower court to award fees against
Prevailing Party Entitled to Routine Costs in Labor Code section 1194 Overtime Compensation Case. Employer in Plancich v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. E050631 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 11, 2011) (certified for publication) defensed employee in an overtime compensation/meal and rest break/failure to maintain records case. However, the trial court denied
Decision Deals with Family Law Attorney’s Real Property Lien. In our July 20, 2011 post, we discussed In re Marriage of Ramirez, a decision exploring the intricacies of the family law attorney’s real property lien. We can now report that the case was certified for publication on August 11, 2011.
