Division 7 Seems To Favor Trial Proof Method Over Post-Judgment Costs Hearing Approach in Unpublished Decision. On June 23, 2010, we reported on Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. Mariners Mile Gateway, LLC, __ Cal.App.4th __, 2010 WL 2473831 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 21, 2010), where a panel of the Fourth District, Division 3 […]
First District, Division Two Finds Fee Motion Timely and Fee Award Reasonable in Amount. In Cun v. Café Tiramisu, Case No. A124985 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 7, 2010) (unpublished), plaintiff ex-employee lost a superior court FLSA action following a de novo Labor Commissioner hearing in which she claimed to have not been paid
Second District, Division 8, in Opinions by Justice Flier, Affirms Two Fee Awards, One For Appellate Work In a Civil Case and One in an Arbitration Context. #1: Moore v. Pro Value Properties, Inc., Case No. B216061 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 6, 2010) (unpublished) In pro per plaintiffs/appellants challenged a $120,360.75 fee award
. . . But The Fees Must Be Requested Before the WCAB or Through Appellate Writ, Not Through Superior Court Civil Proceedings. Here is one of the rare appellate cases we review in the workers’ compensation area of the law. In Koszdin v. State Compensation Ins. Fund, Case No. B214481 (2d Dist., Div.
USDJ Chooses Lodestar in Wage/Hour Class Action Fee Recovery Settlement. Our friend and fellow blogger H. Scott Leviant has reported on Anderson v. Nextel Retail Stores in his June 30, 2010 post at The Complex Litigator website. There, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson, in a common fund wage/hour class action settlement, chose the
City of L.A. Ponies Up An Additional $550,000 in Attorney’s Fees and $380,000 in Interest on Jury Award/Fee Award to Two White Fire Captains. You may have seen media coverage of the 2004 firehouse incident in which Los Angeles firefighter Tennie Pierce, who was known as “Big Dog,” was fed dog food in his
Second District, Division 1 Follows Suit With Division 8—and Relative to the Same Plaintiff. On July 1, 2010, we examined Mundy v. Neal, where the Second District, Division 8—in an opinion authored by Justice Ashmann-Gerst—denied fees to a plaintiff claiming fees as a “catalyst” under Civil Code section 55. Well, now Division 1
Fourth District, Division 1 Construes the Type of “Acts” Which Will Waive Jurisdictional Challenges. For our purposes, the Fourth District, Division 1 has decided that Italian defendants’ making of a pretrial offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 does not waive motion to quash jurisdictional challenges, if the 998 offer was made after
Third District Reverses Denial of Fee to Prevailing Party. Ghandour v. Tahoe Sands Time Share Owners Association, Case No. C056395 (3d Dist. July 1, 2010) (unpublished) involved a trial court’s grant of a permanent injunction to plaintiff as against a defendant time share owners association, with the injunction prohibiting association from blocking her
Contentiousness of Opponent Was One Factor Justifying the Hefty Award. Defendant in a contract dispute with plaintiff won $60,500 in damages, beating a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 pretrial offer of $62,001 (after preoffer costs were added in) made by plaintiff. Then, due to a contractual fees clause in the operative agreement,
