Federal Court of Appeals Prefers Bright-line Rule; Also Reaffirms that Ability to Pay Is a Relevant Factor in Assessing Rule 11 Sanctions. Although we usually stick to California cases, we discuss a colorfully written decision by the Seventh Circuit on wealth/ability to pay as a factor to be considered when assessing attorney’s fees as […]
Fourth District, Division 1 Affirms Fees and Sanctions Awarded in Long Running Battle Between Trust Beneficiaries. Probate proceedings bring out all the nuances of human beings, in what frequently boils down to a struggle over trust or estate assets between disgruntled family members. However, California does authorize awards of attorney’s fees to professionals that
First District, Division 3 Decides Dismissal is Final For Section 1717 Purposes. Recently, we have seen a slew of decisions, mainly unpublished, on what situations constitute finality for purposes of justifying a fee award under Civil Code section 1717. They go from one extreme like Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) (where the
Fourth District, Division 3 Demonstrates, Yet Again, the POOF! Principle. The POOF! principle—that reversal of an underlying judgment generating attorney’s fees awards means the fee award will be reversed—is so commonly seen in decisions we discuss that it now has its own category on the left side of our Homepage. The next case
Family Code Section 6344 Authorizes the Award; Trial Court Did Not Err In Failing to Allocate the Award Between Costs and Fees. Stephens v. Lane, Case No. H032719 (6th Dist. Feb. 26, 2009) (unpublished) involved a wife who obtained an award for $15,000 in attorney’s fees and costs associated with winning a restraining order
Sixth District Vacates $730,466.10 Default Judgment and Reinstates Defendant’s Answer. The next case is a good example of the POOF! principle. Plaintiff obtained a $730,466.10 default judgment against defendant, set up by the trial court’s grant of terminating sanctions for failure to respond to discovery requests. The only problem is that the record did
Second District, Division 7 Underscores Mainstay of Appellate Practice. In Pakravan v. Halajian, Case No. B201864 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 26, 2009) (unpublished), former dentists in a partnership got into a war over various aspects of running a Lancaster dental practice. Litigation eventually erupted, with plaintiffs winning the major part of the battle,
Court of Appeal Affirms Substantial Fee Award, But Reverses CCP Section 128.7 Sanctions. As our Mission Statement warns, attorney’s fees can make or break a litigant given the high costs of taking a case to verdict or decision. The next litigant learned this message all too well, when a substantial fee award was affirmed
Second District, Division 3 Calls Into Question Whether Defense Needs to Answer Some Personal Injury Questions in Many Cases. Discovery is the bane of most litigators’ existence. It is freely allowed (subject to certain limitations)—vacillating from tedious and time consuming (at one pole) to burdensome and extremely expensive (at the other side of the
Fourth District, Division 3 Splits On Liability Issue, But Decides No Fees. In a first impression decision, involving a matter of last impression, a Fourth District, Division 3 panel split on whether a cemetery’s temporary interment of a stranger in a family plot adjacent to one’s parents may give rise to an emotional distress
