Error In Not Requiring Updated Financial Declarations Deemed Harmless In Recent Fourth District, Division One Decision. Under our category "Cases: Family Law Awards," we have reviewed numerous attorney's fees awards under Family Code section 271 and other related provisions. Section 271 is in the nature of a sanctions in family law cases, authorizing […]
Condemnees' Final Demand (With Fees Included) Was 44% Above Jury Award. We do not see that many fee award discussions in the eminent domain area, but the next post will be of interest to eminent domain practitioners.
Marie Gryphon Suggests Tweaks To the English Rule For Possible Use in the U.S. On December 2, 2008, we authored a post on Java Oil, Ltd. v. Sullivan, which explored the differences between the English Rule (losers pay attorneys' fees) and American Rule (each side bears own fees in the absence of a
Second District, Division Two Affirms $269,492.50 Fee Award Against Former Attorney Under Retainer Fee Clause. A recurring theme of our website is that litigation frequently funnels (or devolves, depending on your perspective) down to which litigant wins attorney’s fees under a fee-shifting mechanism. The next case, yet again, is a classic example of how
Sixth District’s Holding Based On Furthering Client Protections Under MFAA. The Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA), Business and Professions Code section 6200 et seq., is a statutory scheme by which a client can attempt to inexpensively arbitrate fee disputes with an attorney without resorting first to formal litigation. For those of you wanting more
Second District, Division Four Sustains Use of Judicial Council Form As Proper. Moghadam v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal., Case Nos. B194314 & B196120 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 19, 2008) (certified for partial publication) involved an interesting issue of whether UC Regents’ refusal to allow inspection of student exams violated the
Mother’s Day Giveaway Does Not Violate Unruh Act or Give Losing Plaintiffs a Right to Fees. In our November 28, 2008 post, we discussed Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., a Fourth District, Division Three decision holding that the Mother’s Day totebag giveaway at Angels’ Stadium did not violate the Unruh Act and that the
Fourth District, Division Three Determines Relevant Clause Is Only For Indemnity, Not Fee Recovery. In our July 12, 2008 post on indemnity clauses and our August 25, 2008 post on Carr Business, we discussed whether indemnification clauses could give rise to attorney’s fees. The quick answer is that it depends on the wording and
State Trends: Trial Courts Dispose of Most Cases Within 18 Months and Jury Trials Are Decreasing in Numbers. Cal Biz Lit, one of our recommended fellow bloggers, posted the Judicial Council of California’s 2008 Court Statistics Report for the most recent fiscal year, 2006-2007. We share the nuggets of information that we gleaned from
Second District, Division Eight Acknowledges Principle in Recent Unpublished Decision. By now, we all know that successful defendants in an anti-SLAPP proceeding are entitled to a mandatory attorney's fees award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c).) So, what about fees on appeal to a defendant/respondent successfully defending the grant of an anti-SLAPP motion?
