Second District, Division Three Affirms Fee Award Because Contractual Fee Provision Did Not Absolutely Bar Recovery For a Failure to Mediate. In past posts of May 30, 2008 on Lange v. Schilling and June 13, 2008 on Casillas v. Westhaven, LLC, we discussed California Association of Realtors (CAR) real estate purchase agreement forms […]
Second District, Division Six Also Determines No Fees Awardable Under Government Code section 800. In County of Ventura v. Ventura County Prof. Peace Officers Assn., Case No. B204907 (Nov. 20, 2008) (unpublished), real party in interest was reinstated as an airport operations officers pursuant to an arbitration award, which was then vacated by the
Stipulated Amount of Fees Found To Be “Taxed Costs” Under Insurance Policy, Second District Holds, in Affirming Fee Awards Against Co-Insurer. We welcome insurance coverage practitioners to our site through our review of a Second District unpublished decision involving a co-insurer’s contribution for defense fees/costs and payment of a portion of the fees paid
Unanimous Court in Vasquez v. State of California Adopts A More Flexible Rule and Equitable Consideration of This Factor in the Noncatalyst 1021.5 Context. In our category "Cases Under Review," we noted that the California Supreme Court had accepted review of Vasquez v. State of California, which presented the issue of whether plaintiff, in
Seller Hit With Fees In a Water Accumulation Concealment Case; Neighbors Obtain Fees Against Neighbors In Tree Obstruction View Case. In these interesting financial times, we find that real estate disputes still fester and produce interesting posts on attorney’s fees issues. The next two cases do not disappoint, originating from our local Santa Ana
Section 1717 Fees Are Affirmed As to Husband, Reversed and Remanded As to Wife; Home Improvement Statutory Fees Are Affirmed As to Both Husband and Wife. Talk about a wild one. If any of you readers believe that legal cases do not mimic real life, you need to read and stay tuned for our
Second District, Division Four Clarifies Scope of Fee Authorization in In Pro Per Plaintiff Situations and Denies Nonstatutory Costs Requested by Plaintiff. In pro per plaintiff, who was not a licensed attorney, successfully petitioned for mandate against the City of Agoura Hills City Council, seeking her attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party
First District, Division Three Finds No Abuse of Discretion In Awarding Substantial Fees Under Section 1021.5. Uphold Our Heritage, an organization of local citizens and architects/authors from around the world, successfully brought a mandamus action against Town of Woodside and Mr. Jobs, an individual seeking a permit to demolish the historic Jackling House (built
Third District, in Unpublished Decision, May Have Parted Company From Fourth District, Division Two’s View on the Issue. In our June 7, 2008 post, we reviewed P R Burke Corp. v. Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Auth., 98 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1050, 1055 (2002), where the Fourth District, Division Two held that an appellant preserved review
First District, Division Three Rejects Challenges to Award Advanced by Appealing Plaintiff Hit With Fee Award. An anti-SLAPP prevailing defendant is entitled to a mandatory award of fees. Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c). However, as with many fee shifting statutes, the amount of fees to be awarded is usually the key contested issue.
