$2.4 Million Fee Award Goes Away. It is not often that we have a federal POOF! to share with you. However, here is a recent one. In F.B.T. Productions, LLC v. Aftermath Records, Case Nos. 09-55817/09-5069 (9th Cir. Sept. 3, 2010) (for publication), plaintiff sued under contracts to recover a percentage of royalties […]
Federal Decision Eschews “Line by Line” Scrutiny and Does Not Mind Redacted Billings in Many Instances. In an earlier post when we first began blogging on California attorney’s fees, we reported on Gregg I & II out of the Fourth District, Division 1 Court of Appeal. (See our June 30, 2008 post.) These decisions
Above: Labor Day Parade, New York City, 1909. Women on board the float of the Women’s Typographical Union. BLOG BONUS – the history of Labor Day.
Reversal Hinged Upon Court’s Failure to Determine Ability to Pay. Here is a case that focuses on a very special fee-shifting statute: Penal Code section 987.8, which provides that a criminal defendant provided with public legal assistance may, at the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, be ordered to reimburse the county for attorney’s
First District, Division 3 Finds Fees Can Be Awarded As a Condition of Relief. Vanderkous v. Conley, Case No. A125352 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 2, 2010) (certified for publication), although citable on other grounds, does reinforce an importance principle when a trial court grants relief to a litigant under Code of Civil
Second District, Division 3 Remands For Costs-of-Proof Award Recalculation. Under our sidebar category “Requests for Admissions,” we have looked at many decisions examining the costs-of-proof statute set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420(a), which allows the court to order a party improperly denying a request for admission to reimburse another party
Second District, Division 4 Nixes Appellant’s Reliance on Parsed Language from Butler-Rupp. In Sherwyn v. Nathaniel, Case No. B215666 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 1, 2010) (unpublished), defendant defensed plaintiff attorney in a jury trial involving attorney’s effort to collect unpaid fees that were claimed to be owed for a prior divorce representation
Second District, Division 4 Parts Company With Dicta in Yassin. Under our category “Special Fee Shifting Statutes,” we have explored decisions examining the construction prompt payment statutes (most of which are contained in the Civil Code). For example, in Yassin v. Solis, 184 Cal.App.4th 524 (2010) [discussed in our May 7, 2010 post],
Appellate Court Details Proper Application of Mir. Business and Professions Code section 809.9 provides that the court shall award attorney’s fees “to a substantially prevailing party” in a peer review lawsuit “if the other party’s conduct in bringing, defending, or litigating the suit was frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or in bad faith.” In
Fee Eligibility for Establishing Precedent on Challenged Practice is Key Issue. In Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., 184 Cal.App.4th 178 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 28, 2010), attorney’s fees were denied to a plaintiff successfully challenging certain court reporting charges and establishing legal precedent in the process. On August 18, 2010,
