Bad News for Attorneys . . . Co-Counsel Cannot Try to Circumvent Limitation By Representing Each Other In De Novo Collection Matter Following Fee Arbitration. Here is a somewhat of a wild one, where two attorneys co-counseling for the same clients were denied fee recovery after a successful jury verdict, following on the […]
RFA Cost-of-Proof Sanctions Cannot Be Assessed Against Litigant’s Attorney. In our August 11, 2010 post, we explored Estate of Manuel, 187 Cal.App.4th 400, 404-405 (2010), where the Second District, Division 3 concluded that RFA cost-of-proof sanctions can only be assessed against a party rather than the party’s attorney. Now, in an unpublished
Water District Did Not Sue in a Representative or User Capacity. Our state supreme court in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 35 (2010) [reviewed in our July 27, 2010 post] and People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.3d 740 (1985) found that a heightened duty of neutrality
Disability Fee Reversal–Mundy v. RLA Properties, Case Nos. B224667/B225612 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2011) (unpublished). In this one, plaintiff in a Disabled Persons Act case, which has a fee-shifting provision in favor of the “prevailing party” (Civ. Code, § 55), lost his attempt to obtain statutory damages in a bench trial,
Fee Petitioner Shows How a Successful Fee Request Should Be Structured. In Jochimsen v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B223518 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff narrowed an excessive police force case down to one civil rights claim, won a difficult jury verdict of $35,000, and then won attorney’s
They Only Benefitted the Trustee, Not the Trust, Justifying Fee Request Denial. The Second District, Division 6, in Waters v. Conkle, Case No. B225166 (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 23, 2011) (unpublished), reminds all of you probate practitioners that extraordinary fees will only be awarded where the attorney’s actions had some benefit for
Maybe an Oxymoron, But Stay With Us To See What This Covers. Our local Santa Ana appellate court recently considered a writ proceeding that involved Code of Civil Procedure section 1029.8. That particular provision allows someone to sue an unlicensed person causing injury to recover treble damages not exceeding $10,000 as well as
She Has To Pay $26,650 In Appellate Fees And Costs To Husband Under Needs-Based Statute. We knew one would not go well for the loser–in this case, the ex-wife–when the appellate court ominously observed early on: “This case is before us for the fourth time.” It didn’t. Ex-wife lost two prior fee
Choice of Law–California Law Applies Across the Board If It Is the Governing Choice of Law on Fee Issues. In our prior posts of June 11, 2008 and January 21, 2010, we discussed decisions indicating that Civil Code section 1717’s reciprocity principle is a fundamental California interest trumping unilateral fee clauses governed by
California Public Records Act Provides for Fee Shifting. Under our category “Specific Fee Shifting Statutes,” we have posted on the past about the California Public Records Act, which does allow litigants the opportunity to collect attorney’s fees and court costs if prevailing on a request to obtain a release of public documents.
