U.S. Congress and North Carolina Also Considering SLAPP Legislation. We have posted frequently on California’s anti-SLAPP statute and its fee-shifting provisions. We can now report that, according to a June 20, 2011 post on the Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press News website, Texas is the 27th state, along with the District […]
Amendment of Judgment to Include Costs Award Was Clerical Issue Not Subject to Strict Time Limits. In an interesting procedural decision of interest to any of us anal, time-driven attorney litigators, the Sixth District provided some interesting guidance on two issues: (1) the deadline timeliness for filing a costs memorandum after a notice
Ruling Expressly Limited to Sophisticated Business Clients. In Desert Outdoor Advertising v. Superior Court (Murphy), Case No. A129051 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 17, 2011) (certified for publication), an appellate court held that a lawyer having clients signing a new retainer agreement with an arbitration clause when lawyer changed firms, even though the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in Divided Ruling, Felt Bound by Buckhannon, With Interesting Dissents on the Merits and on Jurisprudential Thinking. The federal civil rights statute has a pro-plaintiff fee shifting provision in 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W. Va. Dep’t of
Request For $571,495.60 in Fees Rebuffed; Fifth District Gives Great Review of Fee Standards For Both Trial and Appellate Levels. This next case is an interesting sequel to an on-going dispute by which a plaintiff prevailed against the Orosi Public Utility District for Brown Act and California Public Records Act violations, with the first
Burden of Proof Is On Plaintiff to Prove Unreasonableness of 998 Offer. In Leve v. Patient Safety Technologies Inc., Case No. B220274 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 15, 2011) (unpublished), a lower court granted a plaintiff’s motion to tax requested expert witness fees by the defense, ruling the defense did not
No Way, Said Appellate Court in Affirming Decision Interpreting Scope of Class Action Settlement. Here is a post on a case demonstrating that the trial court is the ultimate gatekeeper as far as determining that a class action settlement is fair, including the attorney’s fees award under a settlement. In In re
1.5 Multipler Must Be Revisited, But Likely Proper. After a bench trial, taxpayers of a closely-held corporation obtained invalidation of a decades-long Board of Equalization practice and obtained tax refunds, with the lower court finding that a public benefit had been provided to other closely-held companies so as to trigger fee entitlement under
Plaintiff Won Below, But Denied Fees Based on Trope, With Affirmance on Fee Recovery Not Making Defendant the Prevailing Party. The next case is an elegant, short unpublished decision that demonstrates Civil Code section 1717 “prevailing party” status must be based upon consideration of the whole lawsuit, not just an appellate win on
Defense Did Not Oppose, But Plaintiffs Documented Things Well. Plaintiff’s counsel in Situation Management Systems, Inc. v. Lamoco Consulting, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-11557-RGS (D. Mass. June 6, 2011 Order) requested $718,015.53 in attorney’s fees and expenses for their winning client in a copyright infringement action where the governing statute allows fees to
