Panel Quotes From Fourth District, Division 3 Colleagues in the Process. Who says appellate justices don’t read and admire the prose from fellow colleagues in the other state Courts of Appeal? Not us, as the next case demonstrates. Marriage of Silverman, Case No. B208172 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 8, 2009) (unpublished) involved […]
Second District, Division 7 Overturns Sanctions Where Merits Hearing Was Heard 19 Days Into 21-Day Safe Harbor Period. Here is a good one for all of you Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 fans! The lesson from Li v. Majestic Industry Hills, LLC, Case No. B208404 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 8, 2009)
City Council’s Fee Request May Impede Settlement over Audit Power Dispute. City of Los Angeles and the City Controller have been locked in a lawsuit battle over whether the controller’s office can audit the City’s workers’ compensation program. Early on in the lawsuit, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark V. Mooney issued a
It Happened on September 4, 2009. To our loyal readers, happy upcoming Labor Day. Hope everyone gets some rest and enjoys the break. In our August 22, 2009 post, we reviewed Cabral v. Martins, an unpublished decision by the First District, Division 4 that affirmed a $58,400 fee award to three sets of
Fourth District, Division 2 Likes Profit Concepts Management Reasoning. Our inaugural post way back in May 2008 discussed Profit Concepts Management., Inc. v. Griffith, 162 Cal.App.4th 950 (2008) [one of our Top 10 Cases of 2008]. This case held that a victor on a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction—even though further
Dissenting Circuit Judge Intimates No Fees Were Deserved Based on Scathing Comments of District Judge. Just to show you how attorney’s fees make the world go round and affirm our Mission Statement that they are often a controversial (and determinative) factor in commercial litigation, we have decided to do a quick synopsis of an
Second District, Division 5 Agrees With Lower Court that SLAPP Motion Was “Not a Close Call.” In our category “SLAPP,” we have reviewed the statutory provision that mandates an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant on a SLAPP motion in many, many cases. Less common, we have reviewed a few cases—some
Second District, Division 1 Finds Unrepresented Wife Did Provide Adequate Financial Information, Whereas Represented Husband’s Failure to File Income and Expense Declaration Was Consequential. The next case illustrates that appellate court’s willingness to excuse technical violations may depend on whether the litigant is represented by counsel or representing himself/herself. In Marriage of Sherman,
Fourth District, Division 3 So Holds in Unpublished Decision. The lesson from the next case for litigants seeking attorney’s fees is to make sure your time for bringing the fee petition (called “fees on fees,” and usually compensable) is made timely before the trial court hearing the fee motion. If you wait and
Causation Issue Is Decided Under Substantial Evidence Review Standard. The next case involves a dispute under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), which does allow recovery of fees by a “prevailing” plaintiff. (Gov’t Code, § 6259(d).) The next case, where a CPRA petitioner was denied fees, demonstrates two things: (1) how government entities should
