Lower Court Abused Discretion in How Fees Were Apportioned. Although apportionment of requested fees between compensable and non-compensable claims is a discretionary call that is hard to overturn on appeal, don’t give up. The manner in which the trial court does apportion can still lead to a reversal, as Hafen v. Nielsen, Case […]
2d Dist., Division 6 So Holds In Two Unpublished Opinions, Besides Facing Other Issues. Weiss v. Cope, Case No. B24970 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 22, 2010) (unpublished) In this one, plaintiff rejected defendant’s 998 offer. However, plaintiff’s total judgment–the sum of the jury award and $100,000 in attorney’s fees awarded by the
Trial Court Did Reduce For Noncontract Work, But Award Justified Nonetheless. In JKB Homes Norcal, Inc. v. Denair Community Services District, Case No. F061922 (5th Dist. Nov. 10, 2011) (unpublished), District won an oral reimbursement dispute over sewer services involving an annexation agreement, with developer on the hook because there was a fees
Appellate Court Found Lower Court Correct to View L.A. Attorneys As Within San Bernardino Venue and Necessary Given Earlier Misfortunes with Local Attorneys. Trealoff v. Forest River, Inc., Case No. E048818 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 6, 2011) (unpublished) was a case where an ex-employee won sizable jury verdicts, including punitive damages, for
Remittitur Cost Apportionment Issue Also Considered. The First District, Division 4, in a case it had seen before a couple of times (with the case eventually going to the state supreme court), had decided that an in pro per attorney could not collect an award of attorney’s fees in connection with CCP §
1.5 Multiplier Sustained by Appellate Court, Rejecting Application of Federal Perdue Analysis. Well, well. This next unpublished decision is interesting on a couple of fronts. First, it illustrates that courts will not hesitate to vindicate wage/hour violations through an award of fees enhanced by a multiplier. Second, it also demonstrates that state courts
Request For $571,495.60 in Fees Rebuffed; Fifth District Gives Great Review of Fee Standards For Both Trial and Appellate Levels. This next case is an interesting sequel to an on-going dispute by which a plaintiff prevailed against the Orosi Public Utility District for Brown Act and California Public Records Act violations, with the first
$239,649.87 Fee Award Sustained on Appeal in Civil Rights Case. Defendants were found by jurors to have inflicted emotional distress on plaintiff, and one defendant was found to have violated the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 (Civ. Code, § 51.7) by committing/threatening violence based on plaintiff’s gender. Because the Ralph Civil Rights Act
Wild Landlord-Tenant Dispute Gives Rise to Reversal of $212,685 Fee Award Against Both Signing and Nonsigning Defendants. Robertson v. Sapir, Case No. B224458 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 24, 2011) (unpublished) was a “wild” landlord-tenant dispute including reported accusations of landlord’s brother (a tenant in a boarding room type of arrangement) bothering a
Failure to Apportion Between Defense and Cross-Complaint Prosecution Work Was the Flaw in the Fee Award. Depending on the fee-entitlement statute, apportionment may be a mandatory exercise. Although it usually is discretionary and may not be needed where work was intertwined, these principles do not necessarily apply to all fee situations. Sheridan v. Fladeboe
