Second District, Division 4 Rejects Plaintiff’s Protest to Cost Award, After Defense Prevailed and Recouped Expert Fees Through 998 Cost Shifting. Co-contributors Marc and Mike have litigated several cases (usually, fraud or nondisclosure cases) in which plaintiffs have attempted to recover damages for exposure to “toxic mold.” These cases are extremely expert intensive, […]
Indigency Protections Go Way Back. Yesterday, we did a post on Garcia v. Santana, an interesting Second District decision that held that financial condition was a factor to consider when awarding fees under Civil Code section 1354(c), a fee-shifting statute under the Davis-Stirling Act. Here is some trivia for you history buffs out
First District, Division 5 Determines Trial Court Properly Applied Serrano III Factors. Even under fee-shifting, public interest statutes, our California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 255, 49 (1977) (Serrano III) mandated that multiple factors be used to increase or decrease a lodestar figure requested by victorious litigants. In the next case
Fourth District, Division 2 Finds Family Law Judge Relied on Inappropriate Factors. Here is one, even in this category, that we do not see often. A family law judge is reversed for considering inappropriate factors in awarding attorney’s fees to a wife under Family Code section 2030, the “needs” oriented fee-shifting statute. The lesson
First District, Division 4 Applies a Cardinal Appellate Principle. As we have stressed in past posts on appellate practice, litigants needs to make sure that they provide an adequate appellate record for review of fee determinations. If they do not do so, affirmance is a foregone conclusion. The next case illustrates this well.
Second District, Seven 7 So Holds Under Civil Code Section 1354(c), But Splinters Badly in the Process. We all know that fundamental access to the courts is more than just rhetoric; it is a bulwark of our whole legal system. This principle took “front and center” importance in the next case, where entitlement to
Fourth District, Division 1 Finds Gil v. Mansano Persuasive. The next case demonstrates that both trial and appellate courts will interpret contractual fee clauses by their terms—if the scope is narrow, the fee recovery will be narrow and restricted in application. In Tesh v. LeTourneau, Case No. D052873 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May
First District, Division 1 Suggests Trial Courts Should Explain Multiplier Determinations With Some Specificity. For all of you attorneys practicing in areas that may trigger application of the private attorney general statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5), the next case will be of great interest. Not only does it highlight some discrepancies in
Unpublished Decision Unremarkably Affirms Section 271 Sanctions and Awards Appellate Sanctions, But Remarkably Does Approve of “Estimated” Future Fee Approach in Fee Contests. The next decision we survey is not remarkable for its results: it affirmed a Family Code section 271 sanctions award of $9,500 and then imposed appellate sanctions of $7,500 for a
Sixth District Applies Gemini/Stilwell Bad Faith Test in Two Unpublished Companion Decisions. In our March 3, 2009 post on K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, we discussed a Sixth District Court of Appeal decision that affirmed a $1,114,930 attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 3426.4. That provision authorizes a
