Court Notes that Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Are Broader in Scope. An important reminder for family law practitioners comes from Marriage of DeMarco, Case No. D055009 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 22, 2010) (unpublished). There, the appellate court reversed a $50,000 sanctions/fee award granted against a husband for breaching his fiduciary duties […]
Late Summer 2010 Hearing Will Determine. In our December 20, 2009 post, we discussed the situation of jailed Texas financier R. Allen Stanford, who is stage front and center of alleged Ponzi scheme charges relating to now-defunct, Houston-based Stanford Financial Group. We now have an update. As reported by Juan A. Lozano in
Second District, Division 4 So Holds, Noting No Decisions On Point. We have examined numerous cases that have denied an award of attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 because of the limitation set forth in Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274 (1995), holding that in pro per attorneys representing themselves cannot obtain fee
Fees Appropriately Awarded Against Landlord’s Agents Under Two Statutes. Civil Code section 798.85 of the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) and Civil Code section 799.78 of the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law (RVPOL) both contain fee shifting provisions stating that a “prevailing party shall be entitled” to attorney’s fees “[i]n any action arising out of
Lodestar Should Capture the Usual Fee Recovery; Federal Judges Must Provide a Reasonably Specific Explanation for All Aspects of a Fee Determination. At least in the area of federal civil rights cases (although the opinion may have broader applicability), the U.S. Supreme Court has issued an important decision relating to fee enhancements in Perdue v.
In Your Face . . . Last month, an Orange County Superior Court jury decided against the mother of 7-year-old daughter (Kristen Spears) who sued Allergan, maker of Botox, for daughter’s death. The suit alleged that daughter died as a result of therapeutic Botox injections, apparently predicated on negligence and product liability theories.
Fourth District, Division 3 Opinion Demonstrates Interplay Between De Novo and Abuse of Discretion Review Standards on Different Fee Award Issues. The next case shows how a litigant may convince an appellate court that legal error was committed (de novo review of a fee entitlement issue), but the battle for reversal is lost
Second District, Division 6 Also Holds Fees Do Not Have To Be Apportioned. Broad contractual language allowing for fee recovery “in any lawsuit or other legal proceeding to which this Agreement gives” can even grant entitlement to fee recovery with respect to tort claims. (Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc., 3 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342-1343
#1 – Marriage of Fondario, Case No. E045156 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 14, 2010) (Unpublished). In the first one, a $13,000 fee award to wife was affirmed as a sanction against husband under Family Code section 271. The lower court did not err in considering such factors of uncooperativeness as rejection of numerous
Court of Appeal Also Decides Prejudgment Interest Not Allowable on Fee Awards. Okay, so who says we don’t try to give you readers a synopsis of decisions (even though some might be a little wordy)? The next decision—Woosley v. State of California, Case No. B209890 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 16, 2010) (unpublished)—involves some
