Unpublished Decision in Our May 30, 2008 Post is Now Published. In our May 30, 2008 post, we reported on Lange v. Schilling, Case No. C055471 (3d Dist. May 28, 2008), which strictly construed the CAR purchase agreement mediation clause. Lange closely tracked the reasoning of Justice Fybel in Frei v. […]
Second District Finds Ambiguity in 998 Offer, Contrasting It With A More Limited Release of Claims Involved in the Operative Lawsuit. If a litigant is going to ask for a release of claims in a 998 offer, the next case offers a lesson in specificity—avoid asking for a release of generalized
Los Angeles Seminar Provides Valuable Pointers, Which We Summarize Below. On June 19, 2008, the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis (NALFA) hosted a Los Angeles attorney fee program, entitled “It Pays To Be Reasonable.” Marc Alexander and Mike Hensley attended and were impressed by both the speakers and topics, not
Second District So Holds in Topanga and Fourth District, Division One Concurs in Its Unpublished Kilgore Decision. In our Leading Case No. 6, Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 615-617 (1998), the California Supreme Court determined that a pretrial voluntarily dismissal of a contract claim between two signatories prevents the dismissed
First District So Holds In Unpublished Decision and Modifies Judgment So That Attorney Is Not Held Liable for Anti-SLAPP Fees. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c), a prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs. This has been interpreted to mean the losing plaintiff
Second District Affirms Lower Court Award, Rebuffing Apportionment, Inadequate Fee Substantiation, and Reasonableness Challenges. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pomona (RA) foreclosed on a $9.3 million loan made to plaintiffs for purposes of developing a retail commercial center. Plaintiffs pursued contract and wrongful foreclosure claims against RA, which primarily defended
Fourth District, Division One Harmonizes the Interplay Between Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and Civil Code section 1717(b)(2). Recently, there has been a rash of decisions dealing with offers to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998. The next case resolves what happens when section 998 collides with Civil
Fourth District, Division One Affirms Award of Fees to a Very Forbearing Attorney, Some Under a Quantum Meruit Theory of Recovery. Farina v. Wedbush, Case No. D050926 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 16, 2008) (unpublished) is must reading for those that think that the “no good deed goes unpunished” adage always
First District Decides Issue in 998 Context, Also Noting Split in Appellate Thinking in Interpreting CCP Section 1032. On June 16, 2008, we had our first post on Code of Civil Procedure section 998. Lo and behold, the First District came out with a decision on the same day dealing with
Silence Can Be Deadly Where Fees and Costs Are Not Expressly Dealt With. Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers a potential fee-shifting settlement mechanism for litigants in civil cases, although the offers must be crafted and worded very carefully. In essence, section 998 allows a litigant—up to 10 days before
