The next two cases indicate that decisions to apportion fees for “fee eligible” versus “non-fee eligible” work almost always depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, especially where there are clear avenues to make an apportionment. However, if everything is truly intertwined, trial judges have broad discretion to decide not to […]
Allocation—Artefex LP v. Bushman, Case No. B260737 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 17, 2015) (Unpublished). In this one, plaintiffs won $15,000 on a contract breach claim after voluntarily dismissing tort claims, with the trial judge then awarding $191,256 in fees and $11,778.37 in costs based on a fees clause. The 2/6 DCA reversed
Painter v. Francis Realty, Inc., Case No. C078106 (3d Dist. Oct. 6, 2015) (Unpublished)—Allocation. After reversing the fee award and remanding to see if apportionment was required between tort and contract claims under Civil Code section 1717 (with only contract claims compensable under section 1717), the trial judge determined the tort and contract
Lots of Procedural, Allocation, and Reasonableness Challenges Rejected. In Save Westwood Village v. Luskin, Case No. B257354 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 18, 2015 posting) (unpublished), defendants brought a SLAPP motion, triggering plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss them from the case. However, the trial court determined the merits of the SLAPP motion, granted it,
This Is An Update For Our December 20, 2014 Post On An Unpublished Appellate Decision. On December 30, 2014, we posted on Paletz v. Adaya, a Second District, Division 3 unpublished decision affirming most of a substantial attorney’s fees award of $2.1 million in favor of plaintiffs, except for a minor reallocation issue
Award Of $101,154 Out Of Requested $337,180 In Fees Affirmed On Appeal. Plaintiff prevailed on both breach of lease and fraudulent transfer claims against the defense, with the lease having a fees clause allowing for recovery of fees geared to “enforce” the contract. When it came time to move for attorney’s fees, plaintiff
Although Meal And Rest Break Claims Would Not Trigger Fee Recovery, Other Claims Did The Trick. Barnes v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Inc., Case No. B255034 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 29, 2015) (unpublished) is an interesting 998/apportionment case which has some lessons for both plaintiffs and the defense in the Labor Code violations
Trial Court Did Not Abuse Discretion In Fee Award On Remand From Prior Appeal. Barham Construction, Inc. v. City of Riverbank, Case Nos. F068373/F068914 (5th Dist. July 21, 2015) (unpublished) involved a situation where a general contractor for a skate project in Riverbank won a prior trial, with City being held responsible for
Employer Asking For $1.6 Million In Fees For All Work Only Got $150,000 For Apportioned Time On One Labor Claim. The fee order in Salhi v. PNY Technologies, Case No. CIV 514059 (San Mateo County Superior Court) is interesting and may well present some nice strategies call for employers who obtain a determination
Plaintiffs’ Did Not Represent Himself, But Clients; However, No Allocation Required Based On Intertwined Exception. Defendants were not happy when a trial judge not only enforced a settlement agreement under CCP § 664.6 but also awarded attorney’s fees of $40,349.50 based on a settlement fees clause. Their appeal of both rulings was unsuccessful
