Cases: Allocation

Employment: Losing Plaintiff Employees Are Not Subject To Fee Exposure On Split Shift Claim But Prevailing Defendant Can Recover Fees On Successfully Defending Reporting Time Claim

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment

  Defense Allocation Required on Remand–First Published Decision Interpreting Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection.      To our knowledge, Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular, Case No. 231142 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 20, 2012) (published) is the first published decision to apply Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., 53 Cal.4th 1244 (2012) [discussed in our May 1, […]

Allocation/Secetion 1717: Unity Of Interest Principle Questioned, With One Party Correctly Denied Fees But The Other Did Get An Unqualified Win And A Remand On Fee Determination

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  Denied Winner’s Fee Request Remanded For Apportionment.      Zintel Holdings, LLC v. McLean, Case No. B236139 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 18, 2012) (published) was an interesting lease slugfest where landlord lost its complaint against long-term tenants (son and mother) and mother lost her retaliatory harassment cross-complaint seeking independent damages on cross-motions for summary

Allocation/Special Fee Shifting Statute/Taxation: Prevailing Real Property Taxpayer Properly Awarded $70,806.71 Under Revenue And Taxation Code Section 1611.6

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Taxation

  Government Code Section 800 Cap Does Not Apply to Section 1611.6 Awards.      Acting Presiding Justice Moore, in a 3-0 decision in Villa San Clemente LLC v. County of Orange, Case No. G04984 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 4, 2012) (unpublished), dealt with a $70,806.71 attorney’s fees award under Revenue and Taxation Code section

Allocation/Homeowner Associations: HOA Members Losing HOA Interest In Foreclosure Action Had To Bear Fee Exposure To HOA

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Homeowner Associations

  Apportionment Not Required.      Weiss v. Citrus Heights, LLC, Case No. D058614 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 2, 2012) (unpublished) is yet a stark reminder in these economic times of fee exposure that can be visited upon foreclosed owners of homeowner association interests.      The Jumbo Lemon.  1925.      In this one, homeowners in

Allocation: No Need For Apportionment Where Defendant Did Put At Issue Whether Plaintiff Had To Establish The Deeded Nature of Easement

Cases: Allocation

  $79,297.93 Fee Award to Prevailing Party Under Settlement Agreement With Fees Clause Sustained on Appeal.      Be careful what you ask for is the message of the next case we review.      Jackson v. Saunders, Case No. H036370 (6th Dist. Aug. 2, 2012) (unpublished) was a somewhat wild litigation case over an easement necessary

Appeal/Apportionment/Damages/Tort Of Another: $330,000 Fee Award To Winning Plaintiff Remanded To Apportion Work To Clearing Title Tasks

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Tort of Another

  Slander of Title Work Needs to be Apportioned Out; No Fees For Appellate Work.      Defendant in Johnson v. Grayson, Case No. G044975 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 22, 2012) (unpublished) lost a quiet title case (also having a slander of title claim), but appealed a $330,000 adverse fee award grounded on the tort

Allocation/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717/Reasonableness Of Fees: $158,000 Fee Award Is Result To Winning Defendants In Cremation Intermingling Dispute

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

  No Apportionment of Fee Work Required Where Both Contract and Tort Claims Encompassed Within a Broad Fees Clause.      Above:  Beware the Jabberwock, my son!  Sir John Tenniel, illustrator.       Beware of the broadly worded fee clause, because it likely will give rise to fee entitlement no matter whether contract or tort theories are

Fees As Damages/Allocation: Fifth District Rules That Attorney’s Fees Expended To Clear Title Are Compensable Slander Of Title Damages Where Slander Contained In Recorded Instrument

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fees as Damages

  Dicta in Decision May Be Broader, But No Apportionment Required.      For all of you real estate buffs out there, we report on the Fifth District’s 76-page decision in Sumner Hill Homeowners’ Assn. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC, Case No. F058617 (5th Dist. Apr. 2, 2012) (certified for partial publication, slander of title fee

Allocation/Section 1717: Even Though Two Distinct Contracts Existed (With Only One Subject To A Fees Clause), All Fees Were Recoverable Because Work Related To Defensing The Nonrecoverable Oral Contract Claim Was Essential To Resolving The Recoverable Wri

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  No Allocation Required, Resulting in Affirmance of $318,469.82 Fee Award Where Jury Awarded Winner $71,443 In Compensatory Damages.     Rens Masonry, Inc. v. Luca Properties, Inc., Case No. D057698 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 1, 2012) (unpublished) is an interesting decision which affirmed a $318,469.32 fee award to the winning plaintiff contractor after the

Scroll to Top