Aggrieved Party, Despite Significant Reduction, Appealed To No Avail. We understand that no one likes to be hit with a significant fee award. However, when you get a significant reduction, think carefully about whether you want to appeal. That was the moral of CDC San Francisco LLC v. Webcor Construction, L.P., Case No. A163751 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. […]
William M. (Mike) Hensley is of counsel in the Santa Ana office of Frost Brown Todd LLP, and a member of the Firm’s Appellate/Business and Commercial Litigation/Real Estate practice groups. He has extensive experience in bench and jury trials, binding arbitrations, judicial references, mediations, and appellate work in state and federal courts throughout California. Mr. Hensley also
Record Was Unclear Whether The Lower Court Utilized The Proper Lodestar Reduction Factors For Over-Conferencing, Duplication, Over-Staffing, And Results Obtained. Ladera Ranch Maintenance Corp. v. Tinsley, Case No. G060730 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 9, 2023) (unpublished) is must reading for practitioners and jurists on salient factors that a party opposing a fee request
However, Certain Costs Were Not Allowed, Incorporating CCP § 1033.5 Restrictions Into SLAPP Costs Recovery. In Jones v. Reekes, Case No. F082866 (5th Dist. Jan. 9, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiffs losing a SLAPP motion challenged the trial court’s award to the defense of $19,900 in fees (including $3,000 for “fees on fees” efforts) and $414.86
One Award Reversed Because It Only Covered An Arbitration/Ensuing Litigation Even Though No Arbitration Occurred, And Other Award Overturned Because It Was Unclear That Fiduciary Breach Claim Was Not Barred By Santisas. San Jose Nihonmachi, LLC v. Miraido Corp., Case No. B323093 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 4, 2023) (unpublished) shows how the absence
$53,509.51 In Pre-Offer Fees Were Allowed, Not Plaintiff’s Almost $470,000 Fees/Costs Request. Under recent posts, we have shown how a good defense offer under CCP § 998 will not pay dividends for a plaintiff who does not properly assess it and does not accept the offer. That lesson again resonated in Chen v. BMW
Equitable Servitude in an Amended Declaration if a Contract Under Civil Code Section 1717. In DeBevoise v. Robinson, Case Nos. D078207/D078679 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 29, 2022) (unpublished), neighbors got involved in an equitable easement dispute, with plaintiffs/cross-defendants getting equitable easement relief and also obtaining a prevailing party contractual fees award under an
Year End-Wrap Up By Mike, Marc, And Shanna For Our Top 20 Decisions In 2022—Part 2 of 2 First Floor Corridor, James R. Browning U.S. Court of Appeals Building, San Francisco, California. Carol M. Highsmith, photographer. 2009. Library of Congress. As we have done over the years, this blog provides its top 20
Proposition 65, No-Injury Food and Beverage Class Actions, PAGA, ADA, Lemon Law, Climate Change Litigation, and COVID-19 Liability Issues Were the Illustrative Matters Leading To California’s Ranking. The American Tort Reform Foundation’s 2022-2023 Judicial Hellholes Report is out, in which it ranks California #3, preceded by #1 Georgia and #2 Pennsylvania Supreme Court/Philadelphia Court
Lower Court’s Reduction Of Request For Excessive “Fees On Fees” Upheld In The Process. It is hard to overturn the amount of a mandatory fee award unless it shocks the conscience of the judge or justices reviewing the request for fees. That burden could not be overcome in Koerber v. Project Veritas, Case No.
