In our February 27, 2010 post, we provided some highlights from The Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, which was amended some in a January 15, 2010 order. This decision can now be found at 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4546 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010). Pension […]
Attorney’s Fees, Transportation/Lodging, and Appellate Expenses Appropriate Under 42 U.S.C. § 11607(b)(3). 42 U.S.C. § 11607(b)(3) provides that a court “ordering the return of a child” under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction shall award “necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the petitioner . . . unless
Fourth District, Division 2 Found Focus Was Improperly on Prospective Future Decisions Rather Than on the CEQA Rights Already Vindicated by Plaintiff. In Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo, Case No. E048236 (4th Dist., Div. 2 May 6, 2010) (unpublished), the Fourth District, Division 2 reversed a trial court’s denial of private
Second District, Division 5 Also Rules that Fee Recovery Does Not Have to be Pled and that Civil Code Section 3260.1 Does Not Authorize a Fee Award. We have done some past posts on California’s construction prompt payment statutes, designed to insure that retention payments are not wrongfully withheld by owners or other construction
1: Legal Services Agreement Was Foundation For Both Contract/Tort Claims, Resulting in Substantial Fee Award. In Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Case No. B207567 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 6, 2010) (unpublished), former client sued former law firm for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence (among others) in connection
Title VII Claims Do Not Have To Be Asserted in Federal Case Seeking Only Fees. In Porter v. Winter, Case No. 07-17120 (9th Cir. May 5, 2010) (for publication), the Ninth Circuit determined that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought solely by a prevailing plaintiff to recover attorney’s fees incurred in
Standard of Review Was Determinative in This One. When statutes give trial court discretionary calls on fee requests, appellate courts review such calls under a very deferential standard of review. This deferential standard—abuse of discretion–was determinative in the next case we review. In Ross v. Frank, Case No. B211125 (2d Dist., Div. 1
$6,511.46 Costs Award Against Plaintiff Reversed, Because Bad Faith/Harassment Is Necessary Predicate For Adverse Costs Award in Favor of Prevailing Defendant. In Rouse v. Law Offices of Rory Clark, Case No. 09-55146 (9th Cir. May 3, 2010) (for publication), a district judge awarded $6,511.46 in routine costs to a prevailing defendant in a Fair
Ex-Santa Rosa Police Captain Jamie Mitchel Hit With Fee Exposure In His Wrongful Termination Federal Lawsuit. As reported by Lori A. Carter in her article “Judge rules against ex-Santa Rose police captain” in a May 1, 2010 post on The Press Democrat, California Northern District U.S. District Judge Susan Illston has dismissed a federal
Second District, Division 2 Does Reverse Section 1717 Award To Nonsuing Partnership. Here is an interesting case litigated on appeal by a former Second District jurist that shows how the absence of the requirement of a statement of decision can impede an appeal, in tandem with a failure to specifically document the error. The
