Cases: Allocation

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awarded compensatory damages, we now post on Pec v. Brackenbury, Case No. A142104 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 20, 2016) (unpublished).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

Allocation/Arbitration: Party Prevailing On Arbitration Counterclaim Correctly Denied Fees Upon Review Of Arbitrator “Zilch” Award To Counterclaimant

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Arbitration

  Merits Cannot Be Reviewed, But Prevailing Counterclaimant Did Not Allocate—A Mistake!      We will say that Editions Limited West, Inc. v. Somerset Studios, Inc., Case No. A145320 (1st Dist., Div. 3 July 7, 2016) (unpublished) is another decision where an appellate court would not revisit the merits of an arbitrator’s refusal to grant fees

Deadlines/Allocation: Work On Contract/Negligence Claims Were Intertwined, Justifying Recovery Of $91,819.58 In Fees In $39,335 Compensatory Award Case To Contractor As Against Property Owner

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Deadlines

  Appeal Was Timely, Given That Judgment Appeal Swept In Later Order Fixing Fees.     In Ducoing Enterprises, Inc. v. Patriot Paving, Inc., Case No. G051582 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 15, 2016) (unpublished), a 3-0 decision authored by Justice Fybel, contractor won a $39,335 compensatory award against property owner in a complaint and a

Allocation/Fee Clause Interpretation: Losing Plaintiff In Integrated Contractual Relationship With Broad Fees Clause Rightly Hit With Contractual Fee Exposure

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Allocation Between Defendants Was Not Necessary Where The Work Was Intertwined.      In Fleming v. Peloquin, Case No. E063069 (4th Dist., Div. 2 May 6, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff investor in an LLC venture gone bad sued other parties who were either members or parties with involvement pursuant to both an Operating Agreement (where there

Allocation/Fee Clause Interpretation: $340,000 Fee Award To Former Attorney Who Became Operating Agreement LLC Member Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Operating Agreement Fees Clause Was Broad, And No Allocation Needed With Respect To Time Spent On A Nominal Defendant.      This next case is very factually interesting in nature. In essence, the underlying dispute involved an attorney and clients having some claim to $12 million in California State Lottery winnings by a decedent. Attorney

Allocation, Prevailing Party, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: $390,000 Fee Award To Prevailing Defendants, Some Of Whom Were Alleged To Unsuccessfully Be Alter Egos, Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Fee Substantiation Issues Do Not Preclude An Award Of Fees To Prevailing Parties.     In Asphalt Professionals, Inc. v. Emaron Homes, LLC, Case No. B261674 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 20, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a case against certain defendants (some of whom were sued as alter egos) under a construction contract with a

Allocation: Two Unpublished Decisions Address “To Apportion, Or To Not Apportion,” With Divergent Results Based On The Particular Facts

Cases: Allocation

       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

December 17, 2015 Unpublished Fee Decisions—Three Reversals, Two Affirmances On Variety Of Issues

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Settlement

  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

Allocation, Civil Rights, Costs: Apportionment Not Necessary If Claims Inextricably Intertwined And Routine Costs Against Losing Civil Rights Plaintiff Remanded For A Re-Do

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

  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

Scroll to Top