Court of Appeal Construes Judgment By Its Terms and Per CCP § 685.020(a). So, here is one for all of you judgment enforcement addicts. (Are there such things? Some, we likely believe.) Commercial tenant did pretty well in a convoluted lease modification and rent renewal dispute, beating the claims of landlord as […]
Also Mimics Our Mission Statement In the April 2010 California Lawyer, Anthony J. Oncidi, a partner in the L.A. office of Proskauer Rose and a participant in an Employment Roundtable contained in the April edition, had this to say about a recent decision: “I really like the state Supreme Court’s recent opinion in
First District, Division 4 Finds That Filing of Fee/Costs Motion 42 Days After Remittitur Issuance Was Proper. In a case of first impression, parties successfully prevailing on an appeal with a fee-shifting situation filed their costs memorandum and motion for fees 42 days after issuance of the remittitur in the appellate cause. CRC,
Fourth District, Division 2 Construes Arcane Provision, Streets and Highways Code Section 8831. Streets and Highways Code section 8831 provides that costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, are fixed by the court for costs incurred by a city in pursuing a foreclosure action for unpaid assessments to repay bonds for improvements such as sewers.
$21,936 Reallocation of Fees for Temporary Judge Was Error, Because Jurisdiction Was Lacking. The next case is a potential real pitfall for family law practitioners. It clearly counsels lawyers to make sure that certain fee/costs awards are ordered before a final judgment is entered or preserved pursuant to a reservation of jurisdiction.
Trial Court’s Lodestar Calculation and Failure to Apportion Were Correct. For those of you practicing employment law, you know by now that many of the Labor Code sections involving wage/hour and meal break violations carry mandatory fee-shifting statutes generally favoring the prevailing plaintiff. Usually, the battle is how much, what if, once liability
Second District, Division 4 Found No Error In Severely Reducing Lodestar And Not Applying a Multiplier. After plaintiff settled with several defendants for $100,000 on FEHA claims, the trial court then had to determine the fee recovery to plaintiff’s counsel. Three attorneys requested a total of $564,344.38 in fees (based on a 1.5 multiplier)
Second District, Division 8 Follows Lead of Other Court on Dismissals That Ended Action. In Laing v. Guam Economic Development and Commerce Authority, Case No. B206680 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 30, 2010) (unpublished), plaintiffs suffered dismissal of an action they brought against certain Guam entities for failing to comply with the claim-filing
First Division, Division 2 Overturns Fee Award Under CCP § 1021.5. Do not think for a moment that appellate courts do not realistically assess fee awards, both from legal and pragmatic angles. The next case shows that a fee award under CCP § 1021.5 will not be sustained where it was, at best,
Second District, Division 1 Adheres to Literal Terms of Contract. Under the category “Mediation,” we have examined numerous cases involving CAR form real estate purchase contracts that interpret mediation condition precedents in literal fashion. The next case is no exception. In Yaghobyan v. Tran, Case No. B212365 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 29,
