$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 Aug. 2, 2012) (unpublished) was a somewhat wild litigation case over an easement necessary […]
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 Defendant in Johnson v. Grayson, Case No. G044975 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 22, 2012) (unpublished) lost a quiet title case (also having a slander of title claim), but appealed a $330,000 adverse fee award grounded on the tort
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
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
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 Rens Masonry, Inc. v. Luca Properties, Inc., Case No. D057698 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 1, 2012) (unpublished) is an interesting decision which affirmed a $318,469.32 fee award to the winning plaintiff contractor after the
$22,000 Winner Obtained Fees Despite Not Obtaining Over $716,000 in Sought-After Damages. Where no party under Civil Code section 1717 is a clear winner, the court has discretion to determine the prevailing party. That principle was at play in the next opinion, even though the prevailing parties only won 3% of the total
$332,697.80 Fee Award Resulted From Fee Clauses In Trust Deed/Promissory Note For 5 Year Old-Plus Litigation Over Sellers’ Carryback Loan. Goradia v. Vega, Case No. B228128 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 5, 2012) (unpublished) again demonstrates that the “prevailing party” determination under Civil Code section 1717 is a pragmatic one, with trial and
Compensatory Award Was $560,709; 1.5 Fee Multiplier Also Justified. In the FEHA civil rights area, the law is intentionally designed to confer reasonable attorney’s fees upon winning civil rights plaintiffs and only impose fees against them should the case be shown as frivolous/baseless in nature. The next case illustrates how substantial fee awards
Allocation Not Necessary Where Same Facts And Evidence Involved On All Claims. In Klein v. Nyamathi, Case No. B228157 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 25, 2012) (unpublished), defendants were found liable to the tune of just under $400,000 for flooding their plaintiff neighbors’ property under nuisance and breach of contract theories. The trial
Block Billing Vitiated Certainty of Defense Request for Allocated Fee Recovery. We have many, many times before warned about the dangers of block billing. Under governing California law, block billing can result in draconian results when a trial court considers a fee request–it can disregard the billing in entirety or reduce the request
