A Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct is Not the Same as a Violation of a Court Order. We suspect considerations of professional honor and shame played a more important part than did the amount of the monetary sanctions involved in the next case, Conservatorship of Bibiana Becerra, Case No. D053519 (4th Dist., […]
State Bar’s Decision that Discipline Was Not Warranted Does Not Move Court to Overturn Sanctions Award. The genesis of the next case was a heart-rending child custody dispute that could be a made-for-television movie. Unfortunately, it was real life rather than entertainment. Robinson v. Charlton A., A104663 (1st Dist., Div. 2, July 27, 2009)
Second District, Division Seven Affirms Denial of Motions for Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions We have written from time to time about tort of another and section 1021.6 as bases for attorney’s fees. Justice Perluss, author of a 3-0 opinion, has written a conveniently concise primer on the subjects. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
Result Follows from Application of Abuse of Discretion Standard. In Marriage of Lilyquist and Dova, Case No. A121052, A121716 (1st Dist., Div. 3, July 24, 2009) (unpublished), the Court held (1) that a retroactive order reallocating child support obligations of the father was not an abuse of discretion; and (2) that failure to
The Ninth Circuit Having Spoken, Trial Judge Awards Token. In an April 26, 2009 post, we reported that class representative incentive agreements that created conflicting interests required new consideration of fee awards to objectors and class counsel. The case was Rodriguez v. West Publishing, Case Nos. 07-56643 et al. (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2009)
Hefty SLAPP Fees Awarded to Victorious Cross-Defendant in Trade Secret Case. In our June 27, 2009 post, we reviewed the previously unpublished decision by the Fourth District, Division 3 in Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea. This decision was certified for publication on July 21, 2009. Raining Data affirmed a $112,353.35 attorney’s fees award
Court of Appeals Rules That Timeliness Measures From Date of Docket Entry. A U.S. District Court, N.D. California local rule requires that prevailing parties file their routine cost bill 14 days after entry of a judgment or an order. So, the question arises—does that means (A) when the decision is issued, or (B) the
Second District, Division 1 Finds Award Was No Abuse of Discretion. In our category “Requests for Admissions,” we have discussed numerous cases where substantial fees and costs have been awarded or not awarded when a litigant (usually a defendant) challenged a plaintiff’s refusal to admit the truth of certain requests for admissions. Code of
Judge Velasquez Honors “Capped” Agreement Between the Parties. In past posts of December 1, 2008 and June 15 and June 27, 2009, we have been following the attorney’s fees hearing in the case where The Orange County Register settled with carriers in a wage-hour class suit. On July 16, 2009, Orange County Superior
Appellate Court Decides That More Fees Would Be Unfair Because Half of Fees Paid By Another. Courts do apply equitable principles in awarding fees to victorious litigants under Civil Code section 1717, even where the winner was a last minute add-on litigant. The next case is one illustration of how equities enter into the
