Second District, Division 8 Rejects Challenges to Fee Award. In Barba v. Anderson-Mota, Case No. B206213 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 24, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiff’s attorney was two hours late in attending a noticed deposition of his client, after leaving a message he would be an hour late and then being inaccessible for […]
Court of Appeal Shows Sensitivity to Economy in Ruling in Husband’s Favor. Many times, in our category “Family Law Awards,” we have explored needs-based attorney’s fees awards under Family Code section 2030, designed to level the playing field so that one of the former spouses can gain representation by a counsel. Although the
Fourth District, Division 1 So Holds in Unpublished Opinion. What happens when an initial winner in a case cross-appeals a determination that denied winner an award of attorney’s fees but the appellate court eventually reverses the merits judgment in favor of initial winner? The answer is provided in Costa Serena Owners Coalition v.
Second District, Division 3 Reverses Fee Award. Summary judgments are one of the more frequently reversed adjudications, maybe second to sustaining of demurrers without leave to amend. The law in California is that reversal of a summary judgment means that the postjudgment fee and costs orders based upon the summary judgment also must be
Ninth Circuit Adopts BAP Opinion As Its Own. For bankruptcy and creditor practitioners, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a BAP decision (380 B.R. 204 (9th Cir. BAP 2007)) on an interesting unsecured creditors’ fees issue. The case is In re SNTL Corp., Case No. 08-60001 (9th Cir. June 23, 2009) (for
District Court Will Reconsider Fees Upon Remand. The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (FOIA), does contain a provision allowing district courts to award fees and costs to parties “substantially prevailing” as against the United States under the statute. (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E).) This statute, upon which California’s Public Records Act is
Unpublished Decision Faces Some Interesting Fee-Shifting Issues In ADA Case. Many of the California intermediate appellate unpublished decisions we examine have some very interesting legal issues for jurists to grapple with and resolve. The next one is no exception, containing some gnarly fee-shifting issues that involve Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (pretrial offer
Plaintiff’s $719,000 Fees/Costs Award Goes POOF! We have surveyed several decisions in our category “POOF” that illustrate the principle that many reversals (partial or in full) will require a reversal of a fee/costs award and remand to reconsider after the dust has finally settled on the reversed claims in subsequent trial court proceedings. That
Court of Appeal Denies Fees in a Splintered Unpublished Opinion. We would like to thank attorney Amitai Schwartz, who practices in Emeryville, for alerting us to an interesting unpublished decision from the Third District that concerned an appeal of denial of attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. This cause actually resulted
Update on Transdyn/Cresci Joint Venture Settlement. On our June 16, 2009 post, we discussed a brewing settlement of a dispute between the City of San Francisco and the Transdyn/Cresci Joint Venture. City was considering a $5.9 million settlement after losing a case and facing a $13 million exposure based on a pending fee motion
