Decision Also Has A Colorful Quote On A Confusing Appellant’s Brief. If a motion for reconsideration is meritless, frivolous, or filed in bad faith, the trial court may order sanctions against the movant pursuant to section 128.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (d); Young v. Rosenthal […]
Neither Legal Entitlement Nor Fee Amount Arguments Prevailed On Appeal. Plaintiff subcontractor brought a third-party beneficiary action against general contractor which was resolved adversely on res judicata and statute of limitations grounds in a situation where there was a subcontract with a contractual fees clause encompassing “actual” attorney’s fees incurred. With a few subtractions
The Record Did Not Support Trial Court’s Finding That Defendants Derived No Practical Benefit From Their Partially Successful SLAPP Motion. California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c)(1) entitles a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike to recover attorney’s fees and costs, but does not define the term “prevailing defendant” and is silent
Panel Also Concluded That Aggregate Costs Descriptions And Failure To Apportion Out For Nonprevailing Parties Are Solid Bases To Tax Costs. In Srabian v. Triangle Truck Center, Case No. F080066 (5th Dist. Aug. 12, 2022) (unpublished), the Fifth District faced an interesting legal question where a prevailing party used the MC-010 Judicial Council form
Appellate Court Agreed That No Opposition To Fees Would Normally Be Dispositive, But Reversal In Eliminating Damages Changed The Landscape. Hao v. Wang, Case o. B306737 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 12, 2022) (unpublished) is an interesting case in showing how even a litigant not opposing a fees motion may still get a remand
Beyond That, The Motion Was Not Filed On 16-Court Days’ Required Notice. This case shows how a litigant and his attorney’s prior actions can have a dramatic impact on a later attempt to obtain more attorney’s fees through a noticed fee motion. In Baiocchi v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. G059143 (4th Dist.,
Fees Clause Did Not Allow For Recovery Of Fees In Litigation. In Glass v. Whills, LLC, Case Nos. B304806 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 10, 2022) (unpublished), both the trial and appellate court were dealing with a civil litigant’s claim for prevailing party attorney’s fees recovery under a fees clause providing that
Just Because Some Work Was Done By An Attorney Not Licensed In California Doesn't Necessarily Mean The Arbitration Agreement Or The Fee Agreement Is Unenforceable. Plaintiff Mark Brawerman sued Loeb & Loeb, arguing the law firm failed to protect his interests in negotiating with the venture capital firm Wasserstein & Co., resulting in the
Whitley Financial Analysis Adopted By Lower Court Sustained On Appeal. In Broad Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement Dist. v. 31506 Victoria Point LLC, Case Nos. 304699 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 filed Aug. 2, 2022; posted Aug. 3, 2022) (published), a group of Malibu homeowners successfully prevailed in an assessment validation proceeding against District
$61,122.27 Was The Tab. In Kassas v. State Bar of California, No. 21-55900 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2022) (published), the Ninth Circuit reiterated that, in line with In re Findley, 593 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2010), the costs associated with a Chapter 7 debtor attorney’s disciplinary proceedings were nondischargeable under § 523(a)(7).
