In our June 10, 2009 post, we discussed Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S.D.A., Case No. 07-16077 (9th Cir. June 9, 2009), where certain public interest groups were denied recovery of attorney’s fees under EAJA. Recently, on December 14, 2009, the Ninth Circuit denied one of the environmental group’s requests for en banc […]
Judge Link Awards Only Half of Requested Fees to Prevailing Homeowners in Tree-Cutting Case. This next story contains some good clues to all attorney’s fees claimants about the type of issues that will bother a trial judge when a substantial fee request comes up for hearing. In January 2007, City of Poway workers
Contempt Citation Issued For Failing to File Suit Before Same Judge. As reported to Martha Neil in her article “Billionaire Stanford & His Lawyers Held in Contempt Over Legal Fees Suit” as published on December 16, 2009 on the ABA Website, U.S. District Judge David Godbey issued a contempt citation against billionaire/defendant R. Allen
Denial of Fees Affirmed by Second District, Division 4. The next case is a grim reminder for fee claimants that, where foreign law governs a fee proceeding, you need to make sure you cite proper foreign authorities to the trial court in support of the fee application. The claimants in the next case didn’t
Second District, Division 7 Reverses $78,043 Costs of Proof Award. In Fiore v. Kahana, Case No. B209133 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 17, 2009) (unpublished), the trial court granted a $78,043 costs of proof sanctions for a party’s denial of requests for admissions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420(b)(3). [See our category
Fourth District, Division 3 Reverses Sanctions, Ordering Reimbursement of Trial And Additional Discovery Costs. As indicated on prior posts on e-discovery, litigators must be attuned to both pretrial, trial, and post-appeal sanctions that can be awarded against parties failing to produce computer embedded information. Here is one where the offending party got a break,
Coming Attractions . . . . Marc and Mike’s Top 20 Fee Decisions In 2009 In the next couple of weeks (with apologies to David Letterman for expanding the numerical count), we will be providing you with a synopses of our “Top 20” Fee Decisions in 2009. We will limit this to only published
Liquidated Damages Clause Found Valid; Fees/Costs Award Sustained Also. This next decision should be of substantive interest to both developers and our readers interested in fee issues. Although unpublished, Beck Properties, Inc. v. Hameed, Case No. C058279 (Dec. 11, 2009) decided that an anti-speculation clause in a purchase agreement between a developer and
Fourth District, Division 1 Did Vacate “Future Deposition” Sanctions. The next post is a very pragmatic one for litigators involved in discovery battles. Cutting to the chase, an attorney was hit with substantial fees (sanctions) for interposing over 300 objections during the course of some depositions. The Fourth District, Division 1 affirmed, although they
Temporary Stay, Magistrate Tentative Summary Judgment Ruling, and Dismissal Based on Ripeness/Mootness Did Not Justify Fee Award. The prevailing party in a dispute governed by the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. sec. 2412, is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees if the party achieved “a material alteration in the legal
