Fourth District, Divisions Three and One Affirm Fee Awards Under Family Code sections 2030 and 2032. In our category “Family Law Awards,” we have frequently seen the courts awarding attorney’s fees to one spouse in family court proceedings based on Family Code sections 2030 and 2032. The purpose of these statutory provisions is to […]
Fourth District, Division 1 Distinguishes Its Own Otay Decision. It is interesting that certain issues pop up and are discussed by different appellate courts around the same time frame. In our February 20, 2008 post, we explored Hall-Mark Services, Inc. v. Harris & Associates, an unpublished Third District decision that distinguished Otay River
Petition Pending in California Supreme Court One of the pleasures of blogging is that it is interactive, and we hear (if one can hear email) frequently from our readers. Jeffrey I. Ehrlich, one of the appellate lawyers in Ivers v. Allstate, 2008, WL 5197119 (3d Dist. December 12, 2008) (unpublished), a case reported by
Decision Discussed in Our January 28, 2009 Post. In our January 28, 2009 post, we discussed Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Case, where the Third District affirmed a $4 million class action fee award that represented 1.4% of the settlement fund recovery and a 2.52 multiplier enhancement on a $1.4 million lodestar. Yesterday,
Second District, Division 7 Provides Guidance On Discretionary Decision Making Under CCP Section 1030. Code of Civil Procedure section 1030 vests trial courts with discretion to require out-of-state plaintiffs to post an undertaking to pay costs to prevailing defendants where there is a reasonable possibility of a decision favorable to the defense. The
Local Santa Ana Appellate Court Follows Santisas. Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) is one of our Leading Cases, where the California Supreme Court held that contractual fees are not available under Civil Code section 1717(b)(2) where a case has been voluntarily dismissed or dismissed pursuant to a settlement of the case
Angels Spend $7.5 Million On Litigation, Failing to Win Fees Under Indemnity Clause. Given that spring training is not far away for baseball fans, we have a postscript from our December 20, 2008 post discussing the Fourth District, Division 3’s decision in City of Anaheim v. Angels Baseball, L.P. In that case, the
Second District, Division 5 Sustains Award Based on Broad Fees Clause in Settlement Agreement and Confirms 60 Day Fee Deadline Does Not Apply in Probate Litigation Matters. Most of the time in probate matters, attorney’s fees are awarded for services to an estate. (Estate of Trynin, 47 Cal.2d 265, 272-273; see also cases
Costco Hit With FEHA Fee Award of $471,240 Plus Costs. In our category “Civil Rights,” you will find cases discussing California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), a statutory scheme that has a mandatory fee-shifting provision in favor of winning plaintiffs. The next fee award demonstrates that, depending on the ultimate outcome, fee awards
Decision Affirming $244,287.50 Fee Award Under the California Public Records Act Remains Citable. We would like to thank Ina Bendis, an attorney practicing in Santa Clara and one of our readers, for an update on Bernardi v. County of Monterey, a Sixth District decision sustaining a $244,287.50 fee award in favor of plaintiffs and
