Reduced Fees Sustained in Glenn County Veterans Council Opinion. In our February 6, 2009 post, we reviewed Glenn County Veterans Council, Inc. v. County of Glenn, a Third District unpublished decision in which a trial court’s fee award of $20,000 (out of a requested $112,875) to a veterans group under Code of Civil […]
Ninth Circuit Refrains from Deciding One Issue, Finds No Fee Entitlement After Without Prejudice Dismissal, and Cites Federal Case That May Vary From California State Law on an Inconvenient Forum Dismissal. Avery v. First Resolution Management Corp., Case No. 07-35726 (9th Cir. Apr. 2, 2009) (for publication) presented several thorny issues on whether
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds He Violated Fundamental Tenet of Appellate Practice—Failure to Provide an Adequate Record. Disgruntled husband was hit with a $1,500 adverse fee award assessed by a family law judge and made payable to wife’s attorney. Presumably, the award was made under Family Code section 271, which is a sanctions statute
Fourth District, Division 2 Finds Winning Litigant Properly Allocated Fees. In Bohl v. Pryke, Case No. E045405 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 1, 2009) (unpublished), a defendant in a “reporter’s shield law” case refused to reveal sources. However, he also apparently refused to answer legitimate discovery, drawing the lower court’s ire. The trial court
Second District, Division 8 Affirms Fee Award to Attorney for Conservatee. Conservatorships frequently happen to be sad cases, involving sad facts, litigious factions, and fee awards bitterly contested by relatives. This next case is no exception to the rule. In Conservatorship of Gilly, Case No. B201971 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 30, 2009)
Recent Los Angeles Time Article Explores the Subject. Does a homeowner in a common interest residential subdivision project have the right to review attorney invoices for services rendered to a homeowners association? You betcha. Smith v. Laguna Sur Village Community Assn., 79 Cal.App.4th 641 (2000) so held. For a nice, short article
Family Code Section 271 Is Broader than Just Encompassing Activities that Frustrate Settlements. Both former spouses got hit with attorney’s fees under Family Code section 2032 and 271, although husband was the “net” winner with $14,000 due after offsetting wife’s fee award. The amount was to be paid from wife’s sequestered escrow funds.
First District, Division 4 Believed Award Needed to Apportion Out Some Fraud Work and Take Into Account Plaintiff’s Limited Success on the Promissory Note Claims. Who says that appellate courts blindly rubberstamp fee awards by trial courts? The next case certainly demonstrates that this is not the case, with the reviewing courts making sure
Fee Award Gets Affirmed Automatically If No Other Challenge Is Made Apart From Rejected Underlying Merits Arguments. Eureka! is likely the cry when a merits judgment is affirmed and no challenge is otherwise made to a fee award. Birkner v. Lam, Case No. 121981 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 30, 2009) (unpublished) was
Second District, Division 1 Reverses Fee Denial as Too Restrictive. We have reviewed many decisions involving interpretation of contractual fees clauses, which involve a construction of the ambit of Civil Code section 1717. In the next case, the appellate court reversed based on the determination that the lower court interpreted the scope of the
