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 […]
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
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
Fourth District, Division One Affirms Trial Court’s “Wash” Decision on Issues. The next case involves a melange of fee and costs issues arising from a contract and civil rights case in which plaintiff recovered nothing on her claims but beat school district’s contract cross-claim. That gave rise to all sort of prevailing party claims
Second District, Division 2 Applies Classic Reciprocity Principles Under 1717. Baker v. Oleander Corp., Case No. B221193 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 8, 2010) (unpublished) is another reminder of how reciprocity principles under Civil Code section 1717 operate in cases involving contractual nonsignatory and signatory litigants. It also shows how trial courts will apportion
No Abuse of Discretion Found, Even though Award Was Substantial in Amount. To the victor goes the spoils, says the old adage. Well, that certainly held true in the next case, all the reason that we say that a fee award, one way or the other, can make or break any litigant–and also inspired
1717 Reciprocity Principles Save the Day Again, Sustaining $366,916.63 Fee Award. Many construction disputes involve tripartite affairs between owner, contractor, and surety on a performance bond. That was exactly the situation in the next case, with a performance bond having a fee provision that said this: "Contractor/Principal and Surety agree that if the DISTRICT
Affirms $289,000 Costs Award and $1.6 Million Fee Award. In a long-running case that has produced several appellate opinions along the way, V3I v. Western Digital Corp., Case No. G041386 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 29, 2010) (unpublished) finally ran its course, with the final appeal being from a $289,000 costs award and
Second District, Division 3 Remands For Costs-of-Proof Award Recalculation. Under our sidebar category “Requests for Admissions,” we have looked at many decisions examining the costs-of-proof statute set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420(a), which allows the court to order a party improperly denying a request for admission to reimburse another party
Fifth District agrees the Case is “screwed up.” The story arc of this opinion begins at a low point, and plummets. “What the heck?I?,” begins the Court of Appeal opinion. “At one point, the trial court commented, ‘This is one of the most screwed up cases I’ve ever seen.’ We heartily agree.” Essex Insurance
