U.S. District Judge Guilford’s Ruling Puts Fee Recovery in Doubt. As reported in two articles in today’s The Orange County Register (Larry Welborn’s article “Jaramillo won’t be paid by county” and Frank Mickadeit’s column “George’s lawyers: $845K or $0?”), a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Andrew J. Guilford may mean that Mr. […]
Local Government Legal Spending For 2007 and 2008 Fiscal Years. As reported by Teri Sforza in the November 13, 2009 edition of The Orange County Register, California’s Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) has released its study of local government spending on litigation for the fiscal years 2007 and 2008. The study tallied money
Fourth District, Division 1 So Holds In a Result Consonant With Prior Reviewed Decisions on this Website. Here is one we have seen before, but bears repeating. Attorney sues to collect on a receivable owed from a former client, but through a cross-complaint after client sues for legal malpractice. Attorney prevails in both
1. Marriage of Bareket and Marcus, Case No. H032760 (6th Dist. Nov. 12, 2009) (unpublished). In this one, former husband was awarded attorney’s fees as the “prevailing party,” with the family law judge not specifying that it was a sanction or there was a contractual predicate for the award. Result? Reversal. “We are not
Two Unpublished Decisions Highlight the Key Distinction. 1. Solomon v. Solomon, Case No. B209627 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 12, 2009) (unpublished). In this one, former wife sued to enforce a settlement agreement containing an attorney’s fees clause. She moved to enforce the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, the statutory summary
Fourth District, Division 1 Finds Homeowner Did Not Prevail, But HOA Was Entitled to Fee Recovery. Without meaning to be preachy, we have on numerous occasions—in line with our Mission Statement—reminded readers that litigation happiness or sadness often times boils down to who recovers or who gets socked with fees at the end of
Second District, Division 8 Affirms $250,000 Fee Award to Prevailing Defendants. A broadly-worded attorney’s fees provision—such as one allowing for fee recovery in “any action whatsoever arising from rights and obligations established under [the] Bylaws, including but not limited to actions for damages resulting from a breach of these Bylaws or actions for specific
Concessions of Defendant and Plaintiff’s Financial Impact Declaration Cinch the Award. The next case illustrates how a litigant’s own concessions on public interest and a plaintiff’s declaration about financial impact play important roles in establishing the elements necessary to justify a fee award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (California’s private attorney general
Second District, Division 8 Reinforces the Lesson in Recent Unpublished Decision. In Law Offices of Nejadpour & Associates v. Gonzalez, Case No. B212803 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 9, 2009) (unpublished), a professional law corporation (PLC) successfully won a judgment for delinquent fees from a former client. The retainer agreement had a fees clause.
Second District Determines SLAPP Ruling Does Determine Amount of Motion to Strike Fees, But Remaining Attorney’s Fees Are Fair Game and Defendant Bears Burden of Allocating Out Unreasonable Fees. The next decision is an interesting one that we predict will have more and more play as SLAPP motions and later malicious prosecution awards interact in
