Second District So Holds Even Though Corporation Won Prior Small Claims Action Brought By Same Opponents. The next case teaches a valuable lesson to litigants that are ordered to arbitrate a claim: in some situations, it might be preferable to request a stay of the action pending completion of arbitration rather than voluntarily dismissing […]
Second District Affirms Lower Court Determinations in the “Wild One.” Who says that unpublished decisions lack drama and all of emotions that go with litigation, even in posttrial attorney’s fees proceedings. Not us, and the next case backs us up on this conclusion. Lu v. Grewal, Case No B201355 (2d Dist.,
Court of Appeal Also Affirmed Denial of Routine Costs Because Litigant Did Not Overall “Prevail.” A recent decision from the Fourth District, Division 1 is a fresh reminder of the discretion trial courts possess and legal principles they must follow in determining whether a litigant is a “prevailing party” under Civil Code section 1717
Mail Service Extension Rules Did Not Apply in MFAA Context. The next case goes to show you how (1) the facts are usually outcome determinative, and (2) the specific context and promulgated rules in a statutory scheme may well prevail over a result that seems intuitive under a different set of rules.
Fourth District, Division One Refuses to Consider the Fee Grant Issue. Cross-complainant failed to beat an anti-SLAPP motion and was ordered to pay successful cross-defendants $3,998 in attorney's fees and $80.00 in other costs. The final judgment granting the anti-SLAPP motion was silent as to both entitlement to or amount of fees
Appellate Court Sustains Fee Award Based on Unruh Act and CCP section 998; CCP section 1026(b) Did Not Bar Imposition of Fees Civil cases are very interesting affairs, with attorney’s fees awards based many times on variant statutory provisions. Justice Moore, of our local Fourth District, Division 3, was the author
Plaintiff's Appeal of Anti-SLAPP Fee Denial Was Premature. A plaintiff successfully opposing an anti-SLAPP motion may be entitled to attorney's fees if the motion is determined to have been frivolous or brought solely for the purpose of furthering unnecessary delay. Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c). In the case discussed below, defendant lost
Fees Awardable if Claimant Can That Collateral Action Was “Related to the Action in Which Fees Are Sought and Useful to Its Resolution.” We have a category devoted to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, which codifies California’s private attorney general doctrine. Frequently in these cases, a prevailing plaintiff seeks fees, both for the
First District is Not Amused and Concludes Appeal Represented the “Acme of Frivolity.” You know you are in trouble when the first sentence of an appellate opinion reads like this: “The time has come to put an end to appellant Astarte Davis-Rice’s seemingly unquenchable thirst for litigation—and her egregious waste of
