District Judge Used Wrong Legal Standards, Failing to Look at Defendant’s Conduct in Examining Request. Plaintiffs won a Lanham Act claim by obtaining an injunction (but no damages) against defendants, who run a DMV for-profit website that was found to have unlawfully fostered the belief that it was run or endorsed by the […]
Appellate Court Finds Statutory Mandate is Clear. This one shows how appellate court will enforce statutes as written. The Mobilehome Residency Law has an attorney’s fees and costs provision in Civil Code section 798.85, which requires an award of fees and costs to a prevailing party–with prevailing party defined as one who
Trial Court’s Finding of “No Bad Faith” Was Deferred to on Appeal. For appellate practitioners and litigators contemplating an appeal, you by now should know that most factual findings–even those than can be implied–usually will uphold a judgment or trial court determination. This substantial evidence rule and its close cousin, the abuse of
Family Code Section 271 Sanctioning Authority Justified $3,000 Fee Award Against Ex-Wife. Acting Justice Bedsworth, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, affirmed a $3,000 award against ex-wife based on Family Code section 271. That section imposes a “minimum level of professionalism and cooperation” to effectuate settlement in the family law area and authorizes
California Public Records Act Is Basis For The Request As reported by David Danelski in a July 21, 2011 post at the online version of The Press-Enterprise, this newspaper has filed court papers to recoup $46,684.04 in attorney’s fees and costs under the California Public Records Act. The newspaper successfully prevailed on a year-long
Schwarzenegger-Shriver Divorce Heats Up. In a July 21, 2011 post by Jill Stewart at laweekly.com, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in recently filed dissolution papers, has balked at paying any divorce attorney’s fees to Maria Shriver. His attorney indicated that both sides should pay for their own attorney’s fees in the pending dissolution action. San Bernardino
Suggestions for Maximizing Fee Recovery Under “But For” Standard Pertaining to Prevailing Public Entities in Civil Rights Cases In a July 22, 2011 post at PublicCEO.com, attorneys Gerry Knapton and Kim Karelis discuss the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision of Fox v. Vice, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4182 (U.S. June 6, 2011), where a “but
First District, Division 4 Adds to State False Claims Act Fee Shifting Jurisprudence. In our June 6, 2011 post, we explored the Second District, Division 6’s recent decision in County of Kern v. Jadwin, where Justice Yegan on behalf of a unanimous panel discussed the California False Claims Act (“CFCA”) (explained, along with
In Marriage of Metzger, Case No. B220951 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 21, 2011) (unpublished), wife appealed a $40,000 award of attorney’s fees to her as too low in a dissolution action when husband admitted that he spent close to $300,000 during the course of proceedings. The appellate court found that it
Appellate Court Not Bound By MICRA “Caps” and Remanded, With a Reminder That Courts Will Protect Minors. Here is an interesting decision in a minor’s compromise fee dispute brought by the minor’s attorney claiming that he should be awarded more fees. In a thoughtful decision by Presiding Justice Mallano on behalf of
