Separate Contractual Action Necessary to Support 1717 Fee Recovery. In a follow-up to a CEQA action centering primarily on the arroyo toad (bufo microscaphus californicus), the winning developer sought attorney’s fees in the CEQA action through a postjudgment hearing. The basis was an indemnity clause (which did allow for fee recovery) by which […]
Panelists Were Kevin Martin, Gerry Knapton, and Co-contributor Mike Hensley. Co-contributors Marc and Mike attended an MCLE seminar hosted by Proviors, LLP which was appropriately titled “Contract Litigation and Effective Motions for Attorney’s Fees” on July 8, 2011 in Century City. Besides co-contributor Mike, the other panelists were Kevin Martin, CEO of Sonoma
Fifth District Finds Nothing Wrong in Substantial Fee Award. Hopper Properties v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., Case No. F060235 (5th Dist. July 7, 2011) (unpublished) involved interesting facts and a substantial fee award affirmed on appeal. Owner/landlord Hopper and tenant Payless settled with a six-year-old boy who was bitten by a bat inside
Conservatee’s Daughter’s Appeals Sadly End Contentious Conservatorship Fee Proceedings. In a bitterly contested conservatorship proceeding, Conservatorship of Gdowski, Case Nos. G043583 & G044070 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 7, 2011) (both unpublished), two appeals resolved awards of attorney’s fees to the lawyers for both conservatee and conservator resulting from conservatee’s daughter’s objections to
Premature to Award Fee Until Dust Settles and Winner Can Be Declared. The next case we look at has interesting facts. Freeman, Freeman & Smiley, a Los Angeles law firm, sued its landlord after landlord allowed a third party to display supergraphic advertisements on the outside of the leased building in which
Second District, Division 3 Directs Recalculation of SLAPP Fee Award. In Fuchs v. Smith, Case No. B222470 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 5, 2011) (unpublished), defendants SLAPPed plaintiff’s malicious prosecution suit and were awarded all of their fees reasonably incurrred in the action (not merely SLAPP related fees), although the lower court did
Second District, Division 6 Uses Analogous Federal Case Law in Reaching Result. Under the False Claim Act (Gov Code, § 12650 et seq.), former section 12652(g)(9) provided that a trial court may award the prevailing defendant attorney’s fees if “the claim was clearly frivolous, clearly vexatious, or brought for purposes of harassment.” (Now, the
Court Affirms Judgment that Includes Arbitrator’s Award of $1,136,000 in Attorney’s Fees and Costs. The Hon. Stephen E. Haberfeld (Ret.), was valedictorian at UCLA, an articles editor at Harvard Law School, a law clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, an Assistant Watergate Special Prosecutor, and a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Acting
Reason: Nondisclosure of Social Relationship Between Claimant’s Attorney and JAMS Arbitrator. As reported by a June 29, 2011 post on Thomson Reuters News & Insight, a Texas appeals court vacated a $22 million base award and $6 million fee award in favor of a claimant based on claimant’s attorney’s failure to disclose his
Remittitur Cost Apportionment Issue Also Considered. The First District, Division 4, in a case it had seen before a couple of times (with the case eventually going to the state supreme court), had decided that an in pro per attorney could not collect an award of attorney’s fees in connection with CCP §
