Arbitration 998 Costs Submission Issue, Appeal Jurisdiction Over Sanctions Issue, Arbitration Illegality/Conflicts Issues, And Prompt Payment Statute Issue Are The Ones We See As Pending.
Here is our list of California Supreme Court cases which have attorney’s fees/costs/sanctions issues involved in cases under review.
1. Heimlich v. Shivji, S243029. (H042641; 12 Cal.App.5th 152; Santa Clara County Superior Court; CV231939.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a motion for costs. This case presents the following issue: When a party to an arbitration proceeding makes an offer of compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and obtains a result in the arbitration more favorable to it than that offer, how, when, and from whom does that party request costs as provided under section 998?
2. K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., S241057. (B269864; nonpublished opinion; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC505356. Petition for review after the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from an order in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does the Court of Appeal lack jurisdiction over an appeal from an order imposing sanctions on an attorney if the notice of appeal is brought in the name of the client rather than in the name of the attorney?
3. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc., S232946. (B256314; 244 Cal.App.4th 590, mod. 245 Cal.App.4th 63; Los Angeles County Superior Court; YC067332.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) May a court rely on non-legislative expressions of public policy to overturn an arbitration award on illegality grounds? (2) Can a sophisticated consumer of legal services, represented by counsel, give its informed consent to an advance waiver of conflicts of interest? (3) Does a conflict of interest that undisputedly caused no damage to the client and did not affect the value or quality of an attorney’s work automatically (i) require the attorney to disgorge all previously paid fees, and (ii) preclude the attorney from recovering the reasonable value of the unpaid work?
4. United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., S231549. (B258860; 243 Cal.App.4th 151; Los Angeles County Superior Court; VC062679.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: May a contractor withhold retention payments when there is a good faith dispute of any kind between the contractor and a subcontractor, or only when the dispute relates to the retention itself?