Cases: Allocation

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Section 1717/Section 998/Allocation: Fee Awards Do Not Have To Be Proportional To Damages Award

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  2d Dist., Division 6 So Holds In Two Unpublished Opinions, Besides Facing Other Issues. Weiss v. Cope, Case No. B24970 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 22, 2010) (unpublished)      In this one, plaintiff rejected defendant’s 998 offer.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 […]

Employment/Special Fee Shifting Statute (Pen. Code, § 502)/Reasonableness Of Fees/Allocation/Substantiation Of Fees: $980,373.50 Fee Award To Ex-Employee Not Paid All His Promised Commissions And Subject To Personal Computer Tampering Affirmed On App

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of 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      Trealoff v. Forest River, Inc., Case No. E048818 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 6, 2011) (unpublished) was a case where an ex-employee won sizable jury verdicts, including punitive damages, for

Sanctions: Attorney’s Fees Requested Under CCP § 128.7 Denied Where Motion Not Clearly Targeted And Appeal Was Not Frivolous In Nature

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Sanctions

  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 §

Allocation/Multiplier: Winning Overtime/Meal Break Plaintiff Reaps $210,625.75 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Multipliers

  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 This next unpublished decision is interesting on a couple of fronts.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

Specific Fee Shifting Statute/Allocation: Plaintiff Winning A Brown Act and Public Records Dispute Received $20,000 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Allocation: Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Not Apportioning Out Work on Interrelated Claims When Fashioning Fee Award

Cases: Allocation

$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

Section 1717: Broadly Worded Fee Clause Meant Fees Had To Be Apportioned When Lease Only Signed By One Of The Defendants

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  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

Indemnity/Allocation: $235,000 Fee Award On Implied Indemnity Claim Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Indemnity

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

Civil Rights/Lodestar/Allocation: Appellate Court Affirms Decision To Award $1,000 Winning Plaintiffs Fees Of $60,400 Out Of A Requested $566,510

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar

  Trial Court Had Discretion to Reduce Lodestar, Parsing Out Unsuccessful Claim Fee Work.      This next case describes the discretion allowed trial courts in calculating the lodestar as well as a nice job by the defense in mitigating fee exposure by providing the trial court with a basis for awarding fees only on successful

Scroll to Top