Proposition 103 Fee-Shifting Provision Was Liberally Construed In Favor Of Intervenor “Watch Dogs.” State Farm Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lora, Case No. D077731 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 29, 2021) (published) is one of the first decisions under Proposition 103, which has a fee-shifting provision allowing an award of advocacy fees to a consumer […]
Fees Incurred For The Court Proceedings Were Part Of The Arbitration Process Called For In The Lease For Resolving Fair Market Rent Value And Not Recoverable Under The Prevailing Party Provision Which Applied To An Action Involving A Breach Of The Contract Or Determination of Rights In California Union Square L.P. v. Saks
Former Employer Had The Burden Of Proving A Valid § 998 Offer Had Been Made, But Belatedly Attached The § 998 Offer To Its Reply Papers Instead Of Its Moving Papers In Snoeck v. Exaktime Innovations, Case Nos. B302178/B304054 (2d Dist., Div. 3 October 29, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff sued former employer for violations
RFA Denials Were Properly Based On Documents Which Would Not Necessarily Conclude An Implied License Was At Issue. We have posted, many times, on “costs of proof” sanctions under CCP § 2033.420. Most generally, these awards or denial of requests under that provision are factually oriented. Badger v. Terribilini, Case No. A161178 (1st Dist.,
Also, Fee Clause With “Incurred” Language Means That Fees Did Need To Be Incurred. The result in Korff v. Goodrich, Case No. A160917 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 27, 2021) (unpublished) shows the wisdom in the saying “pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered,” coined by Rubbery Figures, a satirical rubber puppet series screened in
Discussion Occurred When Corporate Attorney Sought To Collect Unpaid Fees. When a trial court granted and disallowed some unpaid fees by a corporate attorney representing the corporation and major shareholder, separately and together at times, the Fifth District in Cyril Lawrence, Inc. v. K.S. Aviation, Inc., Case No. F079662 (5th Dist. Oct. 26, 2021)
Trial Court’s Order Awarding Costs Did Not Operate As An Improper Reconsideration Of A Previous Order, And Defendants Failed To Support With Any Authority Their Contention That Plaintiffs Could Not Recover Fees Where Their Attorney Caused Mistrial. In Esparza v. Win Distribution, Case No. E072880 (4th Dist., Div. 2 October 25, 2021) (unpublished), the
No Abuse Of Discretion In Basing Lodestar On Local Sonoma County Counsel Rates Rather Than Major Metropolitan San Francisco Bay Area Rates When Defendant Did Not Demonstrate Impracticability Or Impossibility Of Hiring Local Counsel. The only question before the 1/2 DCA in Gentile v. Cohodes, Case No. A161721 (1st Dist., Div. 2 October 25,
Plaintiff’s Federal Claim Did Not Preempt SLAPP Fee Award Which Trial Court Reduced From Requested $516,548.13 After Considering Hours Reasonably Expended And Duplicative Efforts, And Plaintiff Demonstrated No Abuse Of Discretion. In AWI Builders v. Alliant Consulting, Case Nos. B294662, B297189, B298699 and B300834 (2d Dist., Div. 4 October 22, 2021) (unpublished), a public
Mortgage Loan Owner’s Entitlement To Contractual Fees Under Note And Deed Of Trust Fee Provisions Transferred To Loan Servicer When It Was Authorized To Act As Loan Owner’s Agent In Enforcing The Deed Of Trust. In Nationstar Mortgage v. Abalkhad, Case No. B303946 (2d Dist., Div. 1 October 22, 2021) (unpublished), homeowner in judicial
