Case One Rejects Adoption of Lodestar Methodology For Probate Cases; Case Two Determines that Fee Request for Successful Defense of Will Contest Must Be First Directed to the Trial Court Rather than the Appellate Tribunal. Now we have two cases of interest to probate and estate practitioners. The first case is Conservatorship of […]
Second District, Division Seven Overturns Fee Award Where No Explicit Provision Allowed For Fee Recovery When Enforcing Stipulated Settlement. Under the American rule governing attorney’s fees awards (as codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021), a prevailing litigant generally is not entitled to an attorney’s fees award in the absence of express statutory
Mike and Marc are pleased to inform our readers that California Attorney’s Fees has now been linked to the ABA Blawg Directory, where blawg related categories include "trial & litigation", "attorney fees", "states", and "California". We especially thank Sarah Randag, the ABA’s web producer, for pointing out to us that our RSS ("Really
Fourth District, Division Three Relies on Jaffe v. Pacelli In Reversing Denial of Fee Award to Judgment Creditor. In our August 2, 2008 post, we reviewed the Second District’s decision in Jaffe v. Pacelli, 165 Cal.App.4th 927 (2008), which dealt with application of Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040. That provision specifies that when
First District, Division Four Sustains Fee Awards Under Abuse of Discretion Standard. In Marriage of Ciunkaite & Zhou, Case No. A120463 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 27, 2008) (unpublished), a trial court awarded respondent wife $13,000 in attorney’s fees (in addition to a prior $16,000 award) based on “need.” Wife had spent almost
Fourth District, Division Two Also Awards $6,000 Appellate Attorney’s Fees Without Remanding Back to Trial Court. Defendant won three successive anti-SLAPP motions that were affirmed on appeal. Defendant was entitled to a mandatory fee award under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c). Defendant requested that the lodestar fees of $55,505 (based on a
Fifth District Determines Plaintiff Did Prevail Under Public Records Act in Establishing Denial of Access to All Local Agency Documents. The case we next review is important to all practitioners (most likely public interest or land use attorneys) seeking to make sure there is transparency in the government decision making process or there is
First District, Division Four Faces Novel Issue, Overturning Fee Award Against Petitioners. Now we look at an interesting decision for CEQA practitioners. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.), a petitioner must request a hearing within 90 days of filing the petition or be subject to
Third District Reads Cummings As Mandating Written Findings of Meritlessness in Awarding Fees to the Defense in FEHA Actions. In past posts of August 1, August 10, and September 21, 2008, we have reviewed decisions which have followed Cummings v. Benco Building Services, 11 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1386-1388 (1992) in FEHA actions, especially for the
Second District, Division Five So Holds In Unpublished Opinion. In Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 617 (1998), the California Supreme Court held that plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of a contract-based action bars a prevailing defendant from recovering attorney's fees incurred in defending the contract claims under Civil Code section 1717. The next case involves
