Plaintiff Made A Plausible, Nonfrivolous Argument That The Statute Of Limitations Did Not Bar An Action. In Kumar v. Ramsey, Case No. C092610 (3d Dist. Nov. 29, 2021) (published), plaintiff was socked with CCP § 128.7 sanctions of $28,882.29 because the lower court believed that the action clearly was time barred under the applicable […]
Contingency Agreement Provided Client Would Pay For All Costs, With Quantum Meruit Equitable Principles Bolstering The Conclusion. Henry M. Lee Law Corp. v. Chang, Case No. B288895 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 29, 2021) (unpublished) was quite an odyssey. Law firm agreed to represent client in a wage/hour case under a 50% contingency agreement
$107,605.20 Fee Award Was The Borrowers’ Gain; Some Tort Claims, If Related To Enforcement Of A Note, Are Recoverable Under Civil Code Section 1717. In Bays v. Ashcraft, Case No. D079056 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 18, 2021) (unpublished), borrowers and lender got into a tussle, with there being mixed results but with the
Losing Plaintiff Ordered To Pay $121,837.50 In Attorney’s Fees And $11,637.85 In Costs Government Code section 1038 penalizes a plaintiff who files and pursues an action subject to a tort claims presentation to defense costs against the governmental entity, when a directed verdict is granted, where plaintiff proceeded in bad faith and without reasonable
2/2 DCA Reconciled Two Statutory Schemes In Coming To Its Conclusion. In Oakes v. Progressive Transportation Services, Case No. B305535 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 10, 2021) (partially published; 998 discussion published), a plaintiff employee was hurt by an employee of another company in a rear-end car accident, and plaintiff former employer’s workers compensation
Fee Clauses Without Prevailing Party Language Have Such A Condition Implied. Drink Tank Ventures, LLC v. Real Soda in Real Bottles, Ltd., Case Nos. B29881/B302215 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 10, 2021) (published) is an interesting case where a “prevailing party” had its intentional interference claim reversed as a matter of law. At the
Only One Item Out Of The List Was Improperly Awarded. The general rules for awarding routine costs to a prevailing party can be distilled down this way: some are expressly allowable; some are expressly not allowable; and if costs are not mentioned in the first two categories, they are awardable in the courts discretion
Costs Determination Remanded To Address Specific Objections To Claimed Costs By Kaiser. In Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Case Nos. B304183/ B306322 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 4, 2021 partially published; costs discussion unpublished), Kaiser was the prevailing defendant for costs because no relief was obtained against it
Appellate Court Rejected That A Frivolousness, Rather Objectively Specious, Standard Governed. Civil Code section 3426.4 is the fee-shifting statute under California’s Uniform Trade Secret Act. It allows a trial court to discretionarily award reasonable fees and costs to a prevailing defendant where a misappropriation claim “is made in bad faith,” which under interpretive case
Lack Of Evidentiary Challenges To Hourly Rates Justified No Reduction, And Block Billing Does Not Have To Be Reduced Depending On The Circumstances. In Nejad v. Abernathy, Case Nos. B304481/ B307759 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 1, 2021) (unpublished), the lower court granted $23,362.50 to a SLAPP winner, which was affirmed on appeal except
