Fee Hearing Now Scheduled for July 16, 2009. In our past post of June 15, 2009, we mentioned that a fee request hearing was scheduled in Orange County Superior Court on June 25, 2009 to approve a settlement between The Orange County Register and a group of newspaper carriers alleging that they were employees […]
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds No Abuse of Discretion. In Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea, Case No. G040902 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 26, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a SLAPP motion against a cross-defendant arising from a trade secret misappropriation dispute, with the trial court awarding $112, 353.75 to cross-defendant under Code of Civil
Fees Can Be Awarded Under Labor Code section 98.2(c). An employer is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, in an amount to be determined by the trial court, when an employee unsuccessfully appeals from a Labor Commissioner’s ruling to the trial court. (Lab. Code sec. 98.2(c).) Cooper v. Golden Gate Reporters, LLC,
Fourth District, Division 3 Remands for Fee Redetermination in “Acrid Dispute Between Neighbors.” Disputes between homeowner associations and members or neighbors in a common interest subdivision seem to result in overboilings of emotions and (ultimately) litigation resources. Many times, the final result—where both sides seek to recoup hefty attorney’s fees—results in a “wash,” with
First District, Division 3 Resolves Conflict Between CCP sections 1987.5 and 2020.510(b). A percipient nonparty witness was served with a deposition subpoena commanding him to give testimony and produce documents during the discovery process. However, the subpoena had no affidavit or declaration of good cause. Nonparty banked on the invalidity of the subpoena because
First District, Division 1 Holds that Civil Code section 1788.30(c) Language Does Not Preclude Use of Multipliers. Civil Code section 1788.30(c), part of the Robbins-Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, allows a prevailing debtor enforcing any liability under the Act to recover “reasonable attorney’s fees, which shall be based on time necessarily expended to
Appellate Panel Affirms Trial Court Determination that Insurer Had No Obligation to Pay Hefty Fee Award. For your insurance coverage practitioners, the next one is for you. State Farm General Insurance Co. v. Mintarsih, Case No. B202888 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 25, 2009) (certified for publication) decided that an insurer had no
Appeals Lawyer Blog Now Includes Monthly Musings Feature Certified Appellate Specialist John Derrick has added a “Monthly Musings” feature to his blog. His first monthly musing is entitled, “Why do lawyers use ‘Esquire?’“. Our article for California Litigation, “When the American Rule Doesn’t Apply: Attorney’s Fees as Damages in California Litigation”, was edited by
Third District Affirms Contempt Order, But Reverses Fee Order On Due Process Grounds. For those of you having an interest in contempt proceedings (which are quasi-criminal in nature), the next case is for you. It also reinforces that fee awards must be crafted with regard to giving an opponent adequate due process rights.
Judgment Creditor’s Use of Clerk Default Fee Schedule Did Not Give Basis to Deny Fee Award, But Other Bases Did. Under our category “Judgment Enforcement,” we previously have discussed the operation of Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040, which provides that attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are recoverable as an element of
