Wife Only Receives $50,000 Despite Claiming To Have Spent Over $200,000, With Husband Claiming He Had Paid $169,000 In Past Attorney’s Fees and $20,000 In Expert Fees While Still Owing $116,000 In Attorney’s Fees. The next case involves an award illustrating how expensive and resource draining family law contests can become when they are […]
Entertainment Conservatorships Do Not Come Cheap. Since a conservatorship was put in place for 27-year-old singer Britney Spears, the attorney’s fees have really soared. No less than 17 lawyers and firms have had a hand in Ms. Spears’ business and personal affairs since then, according to a March 24, 2009 Los Angeles Time article,
Second District, Division 4 Applies Santisas in Affirming Denial of Fees. In our category “Leading Cases,” we have listed Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998), which held that a voluntary dismissal of contractually-based claims will not lead to fee exposure under Civil Code section 1717. However, Santisas did leave open the exception
Second District, Division Two Applies CCP section 904.1(a)(12) in Venue Transfer Dispute. A.Z. Mashiah, Ltd. v. Christopher Ranch, LLC, Case No. B204185 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 23, 2009) (unpublished) reminds us all that only a sanctions order greater than $5,000 is immediately appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1(a)(12), one of the
First District, Division 4 Sustains Fee Award of $676,001 Based on a 1.25 Multiplier, Rather than Plaintiff’s Requested $940,590.87 Lodestar Plus a Proposed 2.0 Multiplier. The First District, Division 4, in the unpublished decision of Tarver v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. A116731 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 23, 2009) (unpublished),
Second District, Division 8 Rebuffs Defense Effort to Obtain $49,000 Anti-SLAPP Fee Recovery. A putative judgment debtor in a sister state judgment proceeding successfully moved to vacate entry of a $56,768 Washington sanctions judgment. Judgment debtor also moved to SLAPP the judgment entry, with the lower court not mentioning SLAPP when vacating the motion
First District, Division 2 Determines Fee Clause Only Allows For Recovery of Fees in Arbitration Proceeding. Unless there is ambiguity or mistake, courts are generally charged with enforcing contracts as written. This applies equally to fee clauses in contracts, as the next unpublished decision illustrates. In Quraishi v. Delta Pools and Patios, Inc.,
First District, Division Two Sustains Lower Court’s Application of 1.5 Multiplier. Labor Code section 218.5 authorizes a mandatory award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in any action for nonpayment of wages if any party requests fees and costs upon initiation of the action. Labor Code section 1194(a) mandates an award of reasonable
Second District, Division 8 Assesses Sanctions on Appeal. “It is clear that appellant feels strongly that he has been aggrieved and that the passage of time has not weakened that conviction. While one can sympathize, on a human level, with such a feeling, it is nevertheless true that disappointed expectations, no matter how deeply
Fourth District, Division 1 Gives Domino Effect to Reversal. POOF! again strikes. City of San Diego obtained a partial reversal of a summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff who had also been awarded postjudgment fees of $245,130 under Government Code section 996.4, which pertains to a public employee’s right to reimbursement of
