Failure to Award Fees under B & P § 6204(d) Was No Abuse of Discretion. Here is an interesting case in the continuing saga of prominent civil rights attorney Stephen Yagman. The case is also poignant in showing how trial and appellate courts will use equitable principles to resolve fee recovery matters. In […]
Second District Illustrates the “No POOF!” Rule. If you have followed our blog, you know about our “POOF” rule. This is the principle by which a fee award will generally go POOF! (goes away) when there is a material reversal of a merits award that was the predicate for the fee award. Now,
Lack of Signatory Status in Moving Documents Was Dispositive. One of the ABC’s in moving for fee entitlement is to show a contract or statute forming a predicate basis for a fee motion. Without it, a litigant is generally left with the American Rule, which does not allow a party to recover for fees.
Sixth District Certifies Decision for Publication. In our January 10, 2011 post on Monterey/Santa Cruz Building, etc. v. Cypress Marina Heights, Case No. H034143 (6th Dist. Jan. 10, 2011), we reviewed a decision awarding attorney’s fees under the private attorney general doctrine in a construction prevailing wage ruling for 900 benefitted construction workers. We
Suffolk County Superior Court is the Venue of this Legal Dispute. In yet another interesting twist on attorney’s fees in the news, Sheri Qualters, in a January 19, 2011 post in The National Law Journal, reports that the Boston law firm of Davis, Malm & D’Agostine is suing Merrill Lynch, as successor to Banc
Case Arises Out of Settlement Reached With Former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean. Seems like lots of controversy as well as lawsuits arise out of beauty queen pageants. Also seems like celebrity lawsuits result in a lot of SLAPP motions. The next “in the news” item is no exception. As reported by a
Fourth District, Division 2 Saw No Basis For Fee Reduction. Although abuse of discretion is the guiding standard for fee amount reductions, it will not prevail where the record showed there was a lot of work, the fees were not out of proportion to trust assets, and no reason for the reduction was set
Majority Acknowledges Tough Burden Resulting to Defense Under Its “But For” Documentation Test, Drawing a Sharp Dissent from Circuit Judge Bybee. The next Ninth Circuit decision is an interesting one for defendants seeking fees in civil rights cases. It involves a situation where there were multiple claims, some based on civil rights, some on
Fourth District, Division 3 Reverses Fee Award, Because Only An Indemnity Agreement Was Involved. Under our category “Indemnity,” we have discussed several cases which explore the difference between an enforceable attorney’s fees clause giving rise to fee recovery and an indemnification clause which does not. Here is one from our local appellate court to
Ninth Circuit Grants Fee Award To Winning Defendant For Fees On Appeal. This next case takes us all back to law school, with the substantive/procedural distinction of import arising from the Erie doctrine. In Northon v. Rule, Case No. 07-35319 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2011) (for publication), defendants won an anti-SLAPP motion
