August 31 was a day in which two decisions were issued by Courts of Appeal, both demonstrating the deference that trial and appellate courts will give to arbitration attorney’s fees awards. Miller v. Lifestyles Senior Housing Managers, Case No. C059843 (3d Dist. Aug. 31, 2010) (Unpublished). In the first one, plaintiff lost […]
Fourth District, Division 2 Finds Substantial Justification for Motion to Quash Subpoenas Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 provides for an award of reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees to a party making or opposing a motion to quash a subpoena if his/her actions were made in bad faith or undertaken without substantial justification. Usually,
Defendant Did Not Meet Christiansburg Standard for Recovery of Fees. In the civil rights area, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) is by no means an equal fee-shifting provision. It favors winning plaintiffs. Conversely, a winning defendant must prove the plaintiff’s civil rights action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation in order to be entitled
Fourth District, Division 3 Does Not Buy “Reverse Bootstrap” Theory Under Section 1717. (Excerpted from photo in Wikipedia article on “Bootstrapping”) One cannot ignore the reciprocity principle underlying Civil Code section 1717, which makes a unilateral contractual fee-shifting clause mutual in nature—and does so in a variety of circumstances. For example, there are
Reversal Meant $94,072.50 Fee Award Evaporated. Here is one showing that appellate courts will try to do equity depending on the facts of a particular dispute. (And, by making this comment, we in no way mean they ignore the law—quite to the contrary, as we have seen in numerous posts.) Unfortunately, for plaintiff and
L.A. Local Rule, Based on CCP § 575.2(a), Authorizes Sanctions For Violation of Local Rules. If you are ordered to appear in a mediation, do it (obviously)! However, an attorney must make sure that he/she has a client representative with settlement authority when representing a corporate or public entity client present or on stand
$1.2-1.8 Million Fee Request Not Honored Against Madera Unified School District. In our November 16, 2009 “In the News” post, we discussed lawsuits being pressed under the California Voting Rights Act for shutting out minority participation in school district elections. School districts either had to pay or were potentially billed for millions of dollars
Rossa v. D.L. Falk Construction Accepted for Review on August 11, 2010. In Cooper v. Westbrook Torrey Hills, 81 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1300 (2000), the Court of Appeal confirmed that interest paid on sums borrowed to obtain a cash deposit undertaking on appeal were recoverable costs of appeal under California Rule of Court 8.278(d)(1)(F). However,
Includes Fees on Related Suit filed by Winslow’s Former Assistant Coach. As reported by Cheri Carlson and Jean Cowden Moore in an August 14, 2010 posted article on vcstar.com (Ventura County Star), VCCCD has spent the sums referenced in our “In the News” title in its probe of Greg Winslow, former Ventura College
The Reversal: Marriage of Schneider, Case No. B215675 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 24, 2010) (Unpublished). This one involved Colorado litigation by ex-husband about ex-wife’s misappropriation of his personal property in a storage facility, which followed apparently contentious California dissolution proceedings. Husband claimed the misappropriated property was worth $363,000, but a Colorado jury only
