“Attorney Fee Disputes In a Volatile and Uncertain Economy” This CLE program on attorneys’ fees is being held this week in San Francisco. March 19, 2009 Golden Gate Law School San Francisco, CA Noon-5pm (with lunch buffet)
Ninth Circuit Takes Away Substantial Section 1983 Fee Award. Federal appeals court, too, illustrate our POOF! principle—substantial fee awards vanish when a favorable merits determination is reversed upon review. In Johnson v. Walton, Case Nos. 07-55935, 07-56238 & 07-56547 (9th Cir. Mar. 13, 2009) (for publication), two plaintiffs were awarded a total of
Second District, Division 6 Affirms Substantial Fee Award Based on “Tenaciousness” Factor. For all attorneys winning contentious real estate litigation with a contractual fees clause, you may have a good chance of recouping most of your fees on behalf of clients under Civil Code section 1717, especially where your opponent was aggressive and tenacious
Second District, Division Two Finds No Abuse of Discretion in Not Awarding $300,670 in Attorney’s Fees to Winning Teacher. The next case concerns a statutory fee-shifting statute—Education Code section 44944(e)(2). It also is an interesting illustration of how appellate courts vary in finding whether a lower court should have articulated the basis for its
First District, Division Five Follows Blickman Turkus and Sessions Decisions. This next case is a virtual paradigm for students of fees clauses in exclusive listing agreements involving MLS brokers who sue sellers and then lose. It deals with judicial estoppel and fee clause interpretation issues frequently seen in these types of disputes. Menasco
Summary Judgment Reversal Also Overturns $62,747.78 Costs/Fee Award in Tenant’s Favor. POOF! gets another litigant again. In LBA Realty Fund II-WBP III, LLC v. K. Hovanian Forecast Homes, Case No. E044299 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 9, 2009) (unpublished), tenant must have been feeling pretty good after the trial court granted it summary
11th Circuit Upholds Denial of Attorney’s Fees Where Attorney Failed to Provide Pre-Litigation Notice of Claim Before Suing Other Attorneys Under FLSA. Hat Tip to Benjamin G. Shatz of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, for bringing Sahyers v. Prugh, Holliday & Karatinos, L.P. (11th Cir. No. 08-10848, March 3, 2009) (published) to
Second District, Division 3 Sustains Application of Negative Multiplier Based on Plaintiff Prevailing On Only One of Four Claims. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. (FEHA), has a mandatory fee-shifting provision for prevailing plaintiffs. (Gov. Code, sec. 12965(b).) Nonetheless, it is tempered by mandating only awards of
County Spent Over $13,000 on Outside Counsel to Collect on $1,004 Detention Debt Owed by Grandmother. California state law apparently allows a parent or guardian of minors to be charged for their criminal detention through county probation departments, although state law also prohibits billing the indigent. These laws have created quite an uproar when
First District, Division 5 Lets Stand $30,000 in Total SLAPP Fee Awards. A successful defendant in a SLAPP motion is entitled to recover mandatory fees of a reasonable nature from the losing plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 425.16(c).) This fee-shifting provision stung a losing plaintiff to the tune of almost $30,000 in total fees
