He Was An Appellate Jurist For Over 20 Years, Also Contributing To Broader Legal And Community Issues. Our local Santa Ana appellate court will have a different complexion in the near future. Earlier, Justices Aronson and Ikola retired, becoming retired neutrals at JAMS. Now, we can report that Justice Richard D. Fybel has announced […]
Exceptions To The General Rule That A Court May Consider Only The Grounds For Relief Specified In A Notice Of Motion, Or Request For Order, Applied In This Case. In Marriage of Torres, Case No. D078469 (4th Dist., Div. 1 February 25, 2022) (unpublished), wife appealed the trial court’s order awarding husband $28,000 in
Also, The Appellate Court Denied Request For Substantial Appellate Fees Based On The Law Of The Case/Waiver Doctrines. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Structured Asset Sales, LLC, Case Nos. B304809/B306245 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 24, 2022) (published) has two interesting additions to jurisprudence in the appellate fees and 128.5 sanctions areas, tethered to the
The 2/4 DCA Found That Any Reasonable Attorney Would Have Expected It To Follow Its Decision In Stratton Which Specifically Held That An Appellate Court’s Directive That Parties Are To Bear Their Own Costs On Appeal Does Not Preclude Award Of Appellate Attorney Fees. In a previous appeal filed by both plaintiff and defendants,
The Parties’ Leases Did Not Include Attorney Fees Provisions, And The Trial Court Erred In Finding That The Leases’ Third Party Indemnity Provisions Permitted Recovery Fees In A Direct Breach Of Contract Action In Blackburn v. County of San Diego, Case No. D076904 (4th Dist., Div. 1 February 24, 2022) (unpublished), the trial court
It's About The Attorneys Fees . . . Attorney Richard Pech, in pro per, sued attorneys Stephen Doniger and Alan Burroughs, alleging that Doniger and Burroughs advised Pech's client not to file a complaint Pech drafted, thereby depriving Pech of the ability to collect attorney's fees. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion and were able
Pursuant To The Law Of Preclusion, Defendants’ Conduct Was Sanctionable Where They Filed A New Complaint, Based On The Same Facts, To Relitigate Issues They Had Already Lost Through Previous Litigation. In U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. v. Rosenblum, Case No. A161511 (1st Dist., Div. 5 February 23, 2022) (unpublished), the trial court issued Code
“Just For Right Now” Award Meant Wife Could Ask For More Down The Road, And Wife Had Burden Of Demonstrating She Was Prejudiced By Trial Court’s Failure To Make Express Findings. In Marriage of Davda and Tejeda, Case No. B310091 (2d Dist., Div. 6 February 23, 2022) (unpublished), Wife appealed trial court’s order awarding
Block Billing Hampered Apportionment Of Fees, With District Judge Only Awarding About A Third Of The Ask. It is not often that we post on a criminal case, but the publicity generated and interesting fee-shifting statute involved in USA v. Avenatti, Case No. (SI) 19 Cr. 373 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. Doc. 34, Mem. and Order
Sanctions Order Was Only $6,750, Although Losing Objector Is Now Liable For Substantially More In Appellate Fees. This next case, Vision en Analisis y Estrategia v. Erwin Legal, Case No. G059669 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 17, 2022) (unpublished), demonstrates that sometimes a losing party/objector should take minor bumps rather than pursue an appeal
