$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 Robertson v. Sapir, Case No. B224458 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 24, 2011) (unpublished) was a “wild” landlord-tenant dispute including reported accusations of landlord’s brother (a tenant in a boarding room type of arrangement) bothering a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
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
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
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
$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
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,
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
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
