This Is The Third In A Recent Trio Of Cases To So Hold. In our November 25, 2022 post, we discussed DeLeon and Espinoza, two appellate cases holding that a business failing to timely pay its share of arbitration fees under a consumer contract eschews its right to arbitrate and can be forced to […]
Plaintiffs Appealed, To No Avail, Even Though The Lower Court Reduced A Larger Request Of $221,510.50 And A Smaller Alternative Request Of $127,498.69. This next case, Elliott v. Tyerman, Case No. B316104 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 22, 2022) (unpublished), illustrates that a litigant who has been hit with a substantially reduced SLAPP fee
No Vital Public Policy Argument Presented To Prevent The Waiver Conclusion. One of the most fundamental rules of appellate advocacy is waiver. Generally, if an argument or objection is not presented at the trial court level, the appellate court will not review it. The appellate court does have discretion to review a question of
Award Could Not Lie Against Litigant’s Attorney, And Simply Challenging Judge For Bias Does Not Justify 271 Sanctions. In Featherstone v. Martinez, Case No. B316280 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 21, 2022) (published), mother and her attorney were ordered to pay $10,000 each in Family Code section 271 sua sponte sanctions ordered by a
Award Was The Defense “Full Ask.” After plaintiff lost a real estate case at the trial court level, the judge awarded the defense $360,965.50 in contractual attorney’s fees, the full ask of the defense in Tri-west Homes II, LP v. Ostayan, Case No. B307708 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 21, 2022) (unpublished). The merits
$72,798.65 In Fees And $1,053.50 In Costs Were The Sustained Awards, Plus The Appellate Court Directed The Lower Court To Award Plaintiff Appellate Fees On Remand. City of Rocklin v. Legacy Family-Adventures-Rocklin, LLC, Case No. C091172 (3d Dist. Dec. 21, 2022) (published) shows how the narrower SLAPP fee-shifting provision can take a bite, allowing
Arbitration Tribunal’s Fee Award Was Not Completely Irrational In Nature Under The FAA. In HayDay Farms, Inc. v. FeeDx Holdings, Inc., Case Nos. 21-55650/21-55698 (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2022) (published), two parties (HayDay and FeeDx) entered into an exclusive distribution agreement with each other through Nippon, providing for arbitration and making Nippon liable for
Lower Court Did Reduce The Fee Request About $121,000 In Fashioning Its Award. We have a category “Trade Secrets” describing some fairly hefty fee “sanctions” awards under Civil Code section 3426.4, part of the California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. To this list can be added the award in SASCO v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc.,
Court Of Appeal Applied Civil Discovery Act Definition Of “Substantial Justification” In Construing Section 1604. In Farnum v. Iris Biotechnologies, Inc., Case No. H047850 (6th Dist. Dec. 19, 2022) (published), the appellate court confronted the issue of how to construe “without justification” in Corporations Code section 1604, which has a discretionary fee-shifting provision in
Year End-Wrap Up By Mike, Marc, And Shanna For Our Top 20 Decisions In 2022—Part 1 of 2. Courtroom One, 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 attorney’s fees/costs
