First District, Division Four Eliminates This Item From Lower Court Costs Award. In Belen v. Taylor, Case No. A118433 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 25, 2008) (unpublished), defendant Taylor suffered a default judgment under trespass/encroachment theories by which he was ordered to remove a fence/garage, ordered to award damages to plaintiff, […]
Court of Appeal Affirms Denial of Attorney’s Fees to Prevailing Parties Against the City of Chowchilla. In our July 12, 2008 post, we discussed when contract indemnification clauses will and will not be interpreted as allowing a recovery of attorney’s fees to litigants in litigation not involving true third-party indemnity issues.
Fifth District Found Unambiguous Agreement That Rendered Erroneous a Discretionary Costs Award. In a contractual dispute between the City of Chowchilla and Carr Business Enterprises, the parties stipulated to submission of the case to a referee under Code of Civil Procedure section 638 (consensual referee statute), specifically stipulating that "compensation for
Recent Second District Decision Illustrates the Pitfalls in Silence or Imprecisely Drafting 998 Offers. In our section entitled “Cases: Section 998,” we have discussed prior posts on Code of Civil Procedure section 998, which allows the parties to contractually allocate treatment of attorney’s fees and costs in settlement agreements or stipulations.
Class Counsel Awarded Fees of $19,302,316.90 (Inclusive of a 1.21 Multiplier) in Ford Explorer Settlement Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Approves Fees Award in Recent June 27, 2008 Order. And We Provide You With a Link to Kimberly A. Kralowec’s Post . . . Click here. Sacramento County Superior Judge De
First District, Division Three Affirms a Lower Court’s Allocation of Fees Between Recipient Heirs From a Common Fund. Settlement of wrongful death actions generally results in the creation of a common fund of proceeds to be divided up among the various heirs. The trial court determines how to allocate the settlement
California Rule of Court 3.769(b) Compels Heightened Disclosure and Scrutiny in Class Action Contexts. In our July 28, 2008 post, we discussed Manley v. Burunsuzyan, an unpublished decision that reinforced the need for client consent to a fee-splitting arrangement between counsel pursuant to Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 2-200(A). Aside from
Proprietor’s Ratification Triggered Fee Liability to Conservator When House Sold For Less Than Its Fair Market Value. Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5 has a mandatory fee-shifting provision that authorizes an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs (including conservator’s fees devoted to litigation) when a defendant is proven liable for
Second District, Division Eight Certifies HOA Association Opinion In The Churchill Condominium Assn. For Publication. In our July 24, 2008 post, we discussed Ritter & Ritter, Inc. v. The Churchill Condominium Assn., a 2-1 Second District, Division Eight decision with a dissent by Justice Rubin. The decision was unpublished at the
Second District Awards About Only a Tenth of Requested Fees Based on Failure to Segregate Services and Comply With California Rules of Court. Here is a new area that we have not yet addressed—attorney’s fees awarded in a conservatorship. As in other substantive areas, it is necessary to provide proper substantiation
