Third District Panel Splits Sharply on Reasonableness of 998 Offer Served With the Complaint Where No Formal Discovery Occurred. The next case we discuss centers upon “early bird” Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers, particularly one that was served concurrently with service of the summons and complaint in a personal […]
Any Other Result Would "Undermine the Intent" of the Judgment Enforcement Statutes. In a case that most law professors would love (replete with convoluted facts), the Sixth District faced an appeal by a judgment creditor arising from a 2000 judgment in judgment creditor’s favor that included an attorney’s fees award of
Fourth District, Division Three Rejects Hitting Husband With Six Figure Sanction and Commends Lower Court for Its Restraint. Family Code section 271’s sanctions has been discussed in several previous posts: July 8, 2008—In re Marriage of MacIntyre and In re Marriage of Falcon & Fyke and July 17, 2008—In re Marriage
Federal Court of Appeals Neither Adopts a “Shocks the Conscience” Test Nor Endorses a “Block Billing Entries Denial” Fee Recovery Standard in Civil Rights Cases. In Mendez v. County of San Bernardino, Case Nos. 05-56118, 06-56424, & 07-56029 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2008), Mendez and family members prevailed upon and lost
Sixth District Does Nice Review of Factors in Unpublished Decision. In our July 13, 2008 post on In re Marriage of Kline Jr. and our August 13, 2008 post on George III, we reviewed cases discussing Family Code sections 2030 and 2032, which allow for a need-based award of attorney’s fees
Second District So Rules Even Though Plaintiff Lost at the Demurrer Stage. In State of California ex rel. Dockstader v. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc., Case No. B197343 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 26, 2008) (unpublished), a qui tam plaintiff lost a demurrer against some private defendants for reimbursement of costs relating
Declaratory Relief Count Never Dismissed Was Proper Anchor for Fee Award. Contractual fee clauses certainly shift the risks in civil litigation. Civil Code section 1717 is a legislative embodiment of that policy, going so far as to make sure that unilateral fee clauses are construed as being mutual in nature. The
Fourth District, Division Three Issues Sanctions for Appeal of a Moot Issue. Under “Cases: Sanctions,” we have discussed the standards governing imposition of sanctions for frivolous appeals, with In re Marriage of Flaherty, 31 Cal.3d 637, 654 (1982) being the seminal case in the area. The next case, which had already
Affirmance of Lower Court’s Order Dictated Under Abuse of Discretion Review Standard. Cross-complainants lost two anti-SLAPP motions directed against their malicious prosecution complaints. As we have seen before, fee awards of some nature are mandatory to prevailing defendants in these situations under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c). See Ketchum v.
First and Fourth Districts Overturn Fee Awards After Reversal of Underlying Judgments. Reversals of underlying judgments can also mean that attorney’s fees awards are vacated or remanded if properly appealed, as the next two cases illustrate. The First District, Division Four, in Arntz Builders v. City of
