Second District, Division 3 Reverses $200,000 Award Under Family Code Section 2107(c), But Sustains $100,000 Fee Award Under Section 271. Facing a novel issue of statutory interpretation, the Second District, Division 3 in In re Marriage of Fong, Case No. B217038 (2d Dist., Div. 3 March 3, 2011) (certified for publication) decided that […]
Plaintiff Could Not Claim Costs, At All, Because His Judgment Did Not Exceed His 998 Offer. Here is an interesting case involving dueling CCP § 998 offers (which we are seeing more of recently), demonstrating how appellate and trial courts will take a pragmatic approach when interpreting joint section 998 offers depending on
Numerous Challenges Rebuffed on Review. Defendants, after SLAPPing plaintiffs’ Complaint (even though plaintiffs noticed a preliminary injunction hearing for the same day as the SLAPP motions), moved to recover attorney’s fees/other expenses totaling $115,601.38 ($105,237.52 of which comprised fees). Over opposition, the lower court awarded defendants $96,404.70 (with the $90,000 bulk being fees). Plaintiff
ABC-Learn, Inc. v. Coronado, Case No. B219107 (2d Dist., Div. 2 March 2, 2011) (Unpublished). In this one, a prevailing defendant appealed a lower court’s denial of his request to recoup $136,140 in attorney’s fees under a commercial lease dispute involving a lease agreement and unsigned purchase agreement/joint escrow instructions. The problem here was
“Unity of Interest” Doctrine Gives Discretion To Lower Courts in Awarding Costs. In Toland v. Arredondo, Case Nos. F058619/F059182 (5th Dist. Mar. 1, 2011) (unpublished), one plaintiff was awarded $114,590 and another was awarded $12,585 by a jury against a corporate defendant, although an individual defendant (unified in interest with the corporate defendant)
They Are Normally Upheld If Not the Product of Fraud. In the on-line March 2011 issue of the California Bar Journal, Diane Karpman has written an article discussing the pros and cons of “true” retainers. Of the true retainer, "rare and exotic," Ms. Karpman writes: "Some lawyers find the idea of being paid
Lower Court Also Did Consider Wife’s Financial Condition in Rendering Award. Here is another Family Code section 271 award that was affirmed on appeal based on the abuse of discretion standard. This is a tough standard to surmount, as wife learned in challenging a $5,000 award to husband. In Marriage
Also Contains Good Guidelines in All Fee Proceedings. We would like to thank reader James Wheaton, Esq., president of Environmental Law Foundation, for forwarding an August 23, 1985 memorandum circulated to all attorneys in the Office of the California Attorney General when that position was occupied by John K. Van de Kamp.
Fee Request Must Be Addressed In Default Judgment Packet Submissions. The next case is one that any litigator should read when seeking a default judgment against a party. It sets forth the proper procedure for claiming attorney’s fees, and the incorrect way is to move for fees postjudgment. The plaintiff in Garcia v.
Not the “Mile High” Club, But the $1,000-Plus An Hour Club Nevertheless. Vanessa O’Connell reports, in a February 23, 2011 article in The Wall Street Journal, that leading U.S. attorneys in some big firms or specialty areas are charging as much as $1,250 an hour, even though some pioneering attorneys had
