Cases: Allocation

Allocation/Section 998: Plaintiff Accepting $9,980 998 Offer After Aggressive Litigation By Defense Properly Granted $93,270 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 998

Panoply Of Defense Arguments Rejected On Appeal.             Plaintiff in Alexander v. Market Street Apartments, LLC, Case No. D070198 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2017) (unpublished) accepted a CCP § 998 offer for $9,980 expressly allowing her to file a fees motion in a wage/hour dispute subject to a one-way favorable Labor Code fee […]

Equity, Sanctions, Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statute, Allocation:  Unpublished Decisions In Last Few Days Address Multiple Fee Issues

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Equity, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

    Equity—Gilotti v. Stewart, Case No. C075611 (3d Dist. April 26, 2017) (Unpublished):  Section 998 Offer, Typo Notwithstanding Valid, and Attorney’s Self Interest Disqualified Fee Recovery.                   In this construction defect lawsuit, plaintiff was ordered to pay a prevailing grading contractor expert fees under CCP § 998, even though the offer said $49,999

Allocation/Appealability/Prevailing Party:  Litigant Winning Demurrer Without Leave Entitled To Contractual Fee Recovery For Unqualified Win

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party

    Apportionment Would Have To Be Made, Because Litigant Shared Counsel With Remaining Party In Litigation.               Hyatt v. Aurora Western Pacific Advisors, Inc., Case No. G052981 (4th Dist., Div. 3 April 20, 2017) (unpublished) illustrates that difficulties in apportioning fees does not allow a trial judge to deny a fee request by

Allocation/Costs/Section 1717: Plaintiff Attempting To Dismiss Lawsuit Against Lenders Without Prejudice Subjected To Substantial 1717 Fee Exposure To The Tune Of $526,393 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 1717

  Plaintiff Also Hit With Some Costs, But Some Non-Statutory And Discretionary Costs Were Stricken.      Plaintiff borrowers brought a multi-count contractual/tort/statutory claim-based suit against construction loan participants, ultimately attempting to dismiss the action without prejudice during trial. The trial judge determined the dismissal was not authorized and set it aside as void, further granting

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717, Allocation: Trial Court Erred In Awarding All Defense Fees Against Voluntarily Dismissing Plaintiff Under Santisas, Requiring Remand And Allocation

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

However, Prevailing Defense Was Entitled To Fees For Tort Claim Work Given Breadth Of Contractual Fees Clause.     A trial judge in Khan v. Shim, Case No. H041608 (6th Dist. Dec. 29, 2016) (published) granted the prevailing defense all fees for defensive work incurred in defending against a complaint containing both contractual and tort claims following

Allocation/Section 1717: Lower Court Erred In Denying Fees To Prevailing Defendant Under Section 1717 Based On “Unity Of Interest” Principle Applicable To Other Unsuccessful Defendants

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  However, Apportionment Was Required On Remand—Consideration Of Many Factors.     In Bank of Southern California, N.A. v. D&D Goryoka, Inc., Case No. D069767 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 29, 2016) (unpublished), defendant/cross-complainant was denied a prevailing party fee request as against plaintiff/cross-defendant Bank to the tune of a $908,171.25 request (later reduced to $795,753). 

Allocation/Consumer Statutes: Prevailing Dealer In BMW Dispute Properly Awarded 30% Of Requested Fees Based On Dealer’s Own Allocation

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes

  Dealer Did A Smart Thing Here In Apportioning Fees Between Claims.    Tun v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Case No. D070447 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 7, 2016) (published) is a nice illustration of a smart move that a prevailing party undertook under a fee-shifting statute in its fee petition papers.  That move was

Allocation, Civil Rights, Paralegals, Reasonableness Of Fees: Substantial Fee Recovery Remanded Based On Merits Reversal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Paralegal Time, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  However, Appellate Court Provides Remand Guidance On Allocation, Paralegal Compensation, And Reasonableness Issues.      In Samuelson v. Dept. of State Hospitals, Case No. A143149 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 28, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff was awarded $1 million in damages against defendants Dept. of State Hospitals and three psychologists hired by Napa State Hospital based

Allocation, Family Law, Substantiation Of Fees: Ex-Husband Failing To Allocate Between Recoverable And Non-Recoverable Claims During Trial Properly Denied Any Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Ex-Husband’s Failure To Allocate And Use Of Block Billing Resulted In Real Problems At Trial And Ultimate Denial Of Any Fees Incurred By Husband. Adding prize winner. Washington D.C. “In a speed and accuracy contest for adding machine operators last night, William A. Offutt of the Washington Loan and Trust Company, was declared winner

Allocation/Section 1717: Broadly-Worded Fees Clause Allowed Defrauded Residential Purchasers To Garner $345,539.19 In Costs/Attorney’s Fees Against Losing Defendant/Sellers

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  Damages Were A Little Over $180,000.     Just to illustrate that attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 do not have to be proportional to the awarded compensatory damages, we now post on Pec v. Brackenbury, Case No. A142104 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 20, 2016) (unpublished).     There, residential property purchasers/plaintiff prevailed on

Scroll to Top