You Betcha, Just Ask East Palo Alto—As the Next Post Shows. Page Mill Properties, the largest residential landlord in East Palo Alto, has been doing battle in court with the city over the proper interpretation of certain rent exemption decisions made by the East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Board under the local rent stabilization […]
PLCM Is the Leading Case Under Civil Code Section 1717, And Likely In Other Contexts. We would like to thank Michael J. Ireland, General Counsel of Majestic Investment Group in Woodland Hills, for this message: “I don’t know if there are many of us out there, but I would like to see cases discussing
April 2009 Issue of The American Lawyer Provides Top Ten List. Who says lawyers are recession proof? Not at all, according to a top ten list of large law firms that have laid off nonpartner attorneys in recent times, as surveyed in an article printed in the April 2009 issue of The American Lawyer.
Fourth District, Division 2 Construes “Recovery” Fee Retainer Language Against Drafting Attorney. The next decision demonstrates that practitioners need to be careful how they draft retainer agreements. Because the drafter is usually an attorney, any ambiguity will likely be construed in favor of the client. That is what occurred in the next case, involving
Third District Gives Mixed Blessing to Fee Victor. What happens when a fee award is not sustainable on one ground but correct on another? Answer: a remand, with directions to recalculate the award under the proper fee entitlement statute. The next case—Klamath River Development Co. v. Preston, Case Nos. C054002 & C055369 (3d
U.S. Magistrate Finds No Substantial Justification For Not Producing Materials As Called For in Defense Discovery Requests. In our post of July 30, 2008, we reported on the Qualcomm decision, where substantial discovery sanctions were imposed upon attorneys for e-discovery disputes that were not discovered until during the course of trial. The next case
CelebriTrials Linked by Large Legal Fees Stevens Case Is Dismissed. Over the weekend, in our April 5, 2009 post, we discussed the criminal trial of former Senator Ted Stevens—which likely cost him at least $2 million in legal fees to defend. Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan dismissed the case at
Dalis v. Reinhard, Case No. H031637 (6th Dist. Apr. 8, 2009) (unpublished). In this one, defendant was awarded $353,607.96 in attorney’s fees when he prevailed on 12 of 13 causes of action in an action brought by a Trust upon a nonrecourse promissory note with a fees clause. Defendant did prevail, and the merits
Fourth District, Division 1 Reverses Summary Judgment Grant Under Marijuana Reform Statute Involving Job Applicants. The next case is an interesting one, although it again illustrates the POOF! principle—if a merits judgment is reversed, the fees award vanishes with it. Larson v. Casual Male Stores, LLC, Case Nos. D051554 & D052185 (4th Dist.,
Second District, Division 6 Affirms Award Based on Family Code section 271. We have under our category “Family Law” discussed on many occasions the application of Family Code section 271, a sanctions-designed statute allowing attorney’s fees to be assessed against a family law litigant that is uncooperative, subverts resolution of disputes, and increases the
