Cases: Allocation

Allocation, Prevailing Party, Substantiation Of Fees: Looks Like Prevailing General Contractor Garnered Over $403,000 In Attorney’s Fees/Expenses For Obtaining Compensatory Damages Of Around $141,467.21

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

  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 July 21, 2015) (unpublished) involved a situation where a general contractor for a skate project in Riverbank won a prior trial, with City being held responsible for […]

Allocation, Settlement: $40,349.50 Fee Recovery In Enforcing Settlement Agreement Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Settlement

  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

Allocation, Construction: Rio School District Decision, On Rehearing, Reaches Same Result On Remanding A “Re-do” Of Attorney’s Fees On Public Contract Code Claim

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction

  Same Result From Decision Surveyed in Our January 28, 2015 Post.      On January 28, 2015, we posted on Rio School District, a Second District, Division 6 decision where a substantial attorney’s fees award was remanded for redetermination after the appellate court determined that an unclean hands defense was legally not cognizable under Public

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation: $291,355.62 Fee Recovery Affirmed On Appeal Because Broadly Worded Fees Clause Encompassed Quiet Title Claim

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  No Apportionment Required Where Lower Court Could Conclude Efforts Intertwined With Covered Quiet Title Work.      In Hamilton Court, LLC v. East Olympic, L.P., Case No. B253511 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 12, 2015) (unpublished), defendants won $291,355.62 in attorney’s fees for trial and appellate work arising from a quiet title easement dispute. The

Allocation, Section 1717: $1,047,250 Fee Recovery To Plaintiff Landlord Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  Appellate Court Rejected Various Arguments that Fees Should Have Been Apportioned.      Plaintiff landlord won prevailing party fees under Civil Code section 1717, pursuant to a lease fees clause, against tenant Bank after plaintiff won compensatory damages of $1,016,812.50 after a two-phased trial (with the compensatory damages component subsequently settled out). Although initially requesting

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 998: Defendant Prevailing Under Fees Clause Entitled To Unapportioned Fee Recovery, Another Plaintiff Not Entitled To Fees Given Failure To Show Fees Clause Was Part Of Contract, And Defendant Properly Denied

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 998

  Olio Of Fees/Costs Issues Confronted By 4/1 DCA In Unpublished Decision. About olio: Is there that o’re his French ragout Or olio that wad staw a sow, Or fricassee wad mak her spew Wi’ perfect scunner, Looks down wi’ sneering, scornfu’ view On sic a dinner?      — Robert Burns      Cosco Fire Protection,

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 998: Prevailing Attorneys In Collection Suit Against Ex-Client Sustain $1.532M Fee Award And $123K Expert Witness Fee Award On Appeal When Attorneys Recovered Base Collection

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 998

  Fees Clause Was Broadly Worded, Former Attorneys Represented Client In Seven Suits, and Section 998 Rejection Gave Rise to Expert Witness Fee Award.      This next opinion, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP v. Lujan, Case No. A139863 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 19, 2015) (published), is must reading for both litigants and attorneys involved

Allocation/Section 1717: $740,257.50 1717 Fee Award Reversed Because Appellate Court Could Not Determine If Lower Court Actually Exercised Discretion To Apportion Award Between Compensable And Noncompensable Claims

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  Discretion Was Abused When There Was No Hearing And Only One Sentence Fee Award.      NICO Alloys v. American Metal Group, Case Nos. B251688/B253987 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 5, 2015) (unpublished) is an example of where a lower court and fee claimant need to do a little more to sustain a fee award

Allocation, Construction: Fee Award Under Public Contract Code Section 7107 Remanded For Redetermination

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: POOF!

  Appellate Court Ordered Apportionment to Limit Fee Award to Those Incurred Solely to the Section 7107 Claim, Meaning $3.85 Million Fee Recovery Went POOF! For Now.      In FTR International, Inc. v. Rio School Dist., Case No. B238618 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 27, 2015) (partially published; fee discussion published), school district and its

Scroll to Top