Cases: Allocation

Allocation/Section 1717: No Apportionment Of $40,630.25 Fee Award Required Where Defensive Work Was Intertwined With Future Cross-Complaint Work

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  Fee Award Followed $201,495.14 Damages Award To Former Client of Co-Contributor Mike.      For you car buffs, Canepa Design v. Mazzotta, Case No. H038631 (6th Dist. May 20, 2014) (unpublished) is a good read about a dispute over delivery of a 1958 Porsche Carrera GT, mainly focusing on whether it needed a properly functioning […]

Allocation/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Winning Litigant Under Elder Abuse Claim Garners $156,346 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  No Apportionment Required Because Everything Involved Same Facts/Misconduct Allegations.      Winning litigant in Sanders v. Garfield Langmoir-Logan, Case No. G048524 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 14, 2014) (unpublished) won an elder abuse claim, which has a fee-shifting statute in favor of the prevailing party under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5(a). The lower court

Allocation/Intellectual Property/Reasonableness Of Fees: Plaintiff Prevailing On Trade Misappropriation Claim To The Tune Of $1,513,400 Also Entitled To Statutory Fees Of $3,297,102.50

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Published Part of Opinion on Fee Issues Focuses on Reasonable Hourly Rates in Court Venue.      Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory Inc., Case Nos. A134343/A135831 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 8, 2014) (partially published; fee discussion on hourly rates published but rest of fee discussion unpublished) dealt with both the merits of

Allocation/Section 1717/Substantiating Reasonableness Of Fees: Realtor/Broker Defensing Sellers’ Tort Claims And Winning Broker Compensation Cross-Claim Gets Contractual Fees Against Real Estate Plaintiffs/Sellers

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Not Every Attorney Must Attest to Substantiation of Hours in Fee Petition.      In Anelle v. Tran, Case No. G048072 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 15, 2014) (unpublished), realtor/broker defendants defensed plaintiffs/sellers’ tort claims from a failed real estate transaction and also recovered listing compensation on a cross-claim where the listing agreement did contain

Allocation/Estoppel/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717/Reasonableness Of Fees: Real Estate Buyer’s Tort Claims Did Not Give Rise To Fee Exposure Under Narrowly-Worded Fees Clause

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  However, Sellers Were Liable To Third-Party For Losing Their Contractual/Indemnity Claims, Which Were Intertwined And Needed No Apportionment.      Real estate buyer lost tort/statutorily-based nondisclosure claims to the sellers in a dispute where a purchase agreement had a fees clause mandating fees in an action brought “with respect to the subject matter of enforcement

Allocation/POOF!: Split Decision On Applicability Of Two Guaranties Meant Dueling Fee Awards Had To Be Reconsidered On Remand

Cases: Allocation, Cases: POOF!

  Even a Partial Reversal Can See a Substantial Fee Award Goes POOF!      City of Novato v. Morgan, Case No. A130899 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 27, 2014) (unpublished) involved the scope of personal guaranties to perform under two residential subdivision agreements. In prior litigation not involving the two guaranties, City was successful in

Allocation: Trial Court’s 42% Apportionment Of Fee Recovery Was Legally Erroneous Where No Clear Division Between Covered Unpaid Wage Versus Noncovered Tort Claims Apparent In Lower Court Ruling

Cases: Allocation

  Matter Remanded for New Apportionment.      In Deven v. Dynamic Auto Images, Case No. G048064 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 22, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff dismissed a harassment lawsuit which contained some tort and contractual claims. Defendant moved to recover some attorney’s fees under Labor Code section 218.5, an unpaid wage fee-shifting statute, with the

Allocation/Consumer Statutes: Automobile Purchasers Not Effectively Rescinding Did Not Obtain Reversal Of Adverse Fee Recovery Under Two Consumer Statutes

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes

  Work on $54,771.25 Fee Award Was Interrelated Under Automobile Sales Finance Act and Consumer Legal Remedies Act Claims.      Many consumer statutes allow for fee recovery to the prevailing party, such as the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA, Civ. Code,, § 2983.4). Others allow for fee recovery, even against the consumer but only if

Allocation/Employment/Landlord-Tenant/Section 1717: Wild Landlord/Tenant And Minimum Wage Earner Battle Means All Fee Awards Had To Be Reversed

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Section 1717

  Rental Inhabitability Battles Are Contractual, Giving Rise to 1717 Fee Exposure, While Limited Success On Minimum Wage Mandatory Fee-Shifting Claims Requires Apportionment and Possible Reduction.       This next case is hard to pigeonhole, because it involves cross-over issues in the Landlord/Tenant and Employment post sites. However, Staley v. Carlson, Case No. A133115 (1st Dist.,

Allocation/Fee Clause Interpretation/Prevailing Party: Broadly-Worded Fees Clause Allowed For Recovery Of Fees On Noncontract Claims Following Voluntary Dismissal In Wake Of Pleading Motions

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

  Fee Motion Properly Filed and No Allocation Between Claims Required.      Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its contract-based/tortious interference case against one defendant without prejudice in the wake of pending pleading motions, with the trial court determining that fully requested fees of $16,926 were due to prevailing defendant.      Plaintiff’s multi-pronged attack in Oxnard Corner, LLC

Scroll to Top