Cases: Allocation

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 […]

Special Fee Shifting Statute: $74,402.35 Costs Award In Carrier Apportionment Battle Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Carmack Act Apportionment Provision Was At Issue.      Here is one that involves two carriers being sued and then battling it out for apportionment of responsibility and costs. The Carmack Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14706(b), has a specific provision allowing for apportionment of costs between carriers, including reasonable expenses incurred in defending an action

Allocation/Appealability/Homeowner Associations/Reasonableness Of Fees: $190,065 Fee Award Affirmed in “Acrid Dispute Between Neighbors” Under CC&Rs

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Appealability, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Trial Court’s Significant Reductions in Requested Fees Obviated Need to Apportion With Mathematical Precision.      The next case illustrates a result we see often in appellate decisions when apportionment of fees is necessary as between compensable and noncompensable claims: a lower court’s reduction of fee requests obviates the need to perform a CPA-like audit of

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Chino Municipal Ordinance’s Fee Provision Supported Substantial Fee Award Against Verizon

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  $185,674.22 Fee Award and $12,829 Costs Award Sustained on Appeal.      Chino Municipal Code section 12.02.030 provides that any applicant (usually a telecommunications company obtaining an encroachment permit) failing to restore city or private property to the like or better condition after any encroachment damages “shall be liable for all costs to restore same

Allocation: To Apportion Or Not To Apportion . . . . That Is The Question

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

If Trial Court Determines Common Facts Overlap Compensable and Noncompensable Claims for Fee Recovery, Usually Treated as Discretionary Exercise Upon Appellate Review.      In Conservatorship of McQueen (Taye v. Drumgoole), Case No. A126825 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 14, 2011) (unpublished), family attorney and other defendants were found liable for financial elder abuse, concealment, conversion,

Civil Rights/Allocation: Nonfrivolous Federal Civil Right Claim Fees Awarded As Part Of Anti-SLAPP Fee Recovery Would Not Withstand Appellate Scrutiny

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: SLAPP

Ninth Circuit Reverses and Remands To Craft Fee Recovery Only for anti-SLAPP Work.      In Fox v. Vice, No. 10-114 (U.S. Sup. Ct., cert. granted, 131 S. Ct. 505 [Nov. 1, 2010]), the United States Supreme Court will consider whether attorney’s fees can be awarded for intertwined work when the civil rights claims are determined

Homeowners Association/Standard Of Review/Allocation/Substantiation of Fees: Substantial Cross-Fee Awards Affirmed Across The Board In Acrimonious Tree View Dispute

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Standard of Review, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Second District, Division 1 Finds No Abuse of Discretion in Various Fee Awards.      It is amazing how ocean views, privacy, and trees all seem to be in the mix of many neighbor/homeowner association disputes. The next one is no exception, producing substantial cross-fee awards under Civil Code section 1354 that probably only made the

Allocation: None Necessary In Financial Elder Abuse Case Where Issues Were Intertwined

Cases: Allocation

First District, Division 4 Sustains $320,748.25 Fee Award to Plaintiff Conservator.      Plaintiff conservator won a $99,900 compensatory jury verdict against certain defendants, but only one defendant was found liable under the elder abuse statute containing a mandatory fee shifting provision against unsuccessful defendants. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.5(a).) Later, the trial court ordered

Fee Clause Interpretation: Broadly Worded Fee Clause Relating To Any Initiated Litigation In Connection With Obstruction Justified Substantial Fee Award Against Losing Party

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Second District, Division 6 Affirms $210,697.50 Fee Award.      Judges, as much as anyone, do try to be pragmatic in awarding fees, which are frequently based on equitable considerations. Here is one illustrating that principle, even though the breadth of the fees clause and intertwinement of issues well supported the result legally.      In

Allocation And Costs: “Scorched Earth” Tactics Can Cost You In The Fee/Costs Battle

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

Second District, Division 6 Finds No Unreasonableness in Trial Court Awards.      “Scorched earth” is a frequently bandied phrase in litigation. However, if a trial court believes that you as a litigant have engaged in it, this strategy may cost you big when it comes time for reckoning fee/cost recovery to the prevailing party after

Scroll to Top