1: Legal Services Agreement Was Foundation For Both Contract/Tort Claims, Resulting in Substantial Fee Award. In Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Case No. B207567 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 6, 2010) (unpublished), former client sued former law firm for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence (among others) in connection […]
Fourth District, Division 3 Opinion Demonstrates Interplay Between De Novo and Abuse of Discretion Review Standards on Different Fee Award Issues. The next case shows how a litigant may convince an appellate court that legal error was committed (de novo review of a fee entitlement issue), but the battle for reversal is lost
Second District, Division 6 Also Holds Fees Do Not Have To Be Apportioned. Broad contractual language allowing for fee recovery “in any lawsuit or other legal proceeding to which this Agreement gives” can even grant entitlement to fee recovery with respect to tort claims. (Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc., 3 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342-1343
Fourth District, Division 3 Affirms Fee/Costs Award Based on Retaliation Jury Verdict Against City of Anaheim. In our category “Civil Rights,” we have surveyed many FEHA fee/costs awards because the statute is pro-plaintiff oriented. Here is one where there were both FEHA and non-FEHA claims, but no allocation was necessary because the claims
Plaintiff Winning Exempt Employee Misclassification Dispute Entitled to Full Fee Recovery Without Need for Apportionment. Winning a civil suit for wage/hour violations usually allows the prevailing plaintiff to recover mandatory attorney’s fees. However, what if there are related claims that do not carry a basis for fee recovery? What is a court to do?
Analysis of Fee Recovery Under Multiple Agreements Must Focus On Contract With Fee Clause Predicate. Many decisions we have examined in the past under Civil Code section 1717 involve situations where multiple contracts (some with fees clauses and some without) are part of an integrated transaction or where apportionment between contract/noncontract claims was
Sixth District Found Opposing Party Forfeited Challenge to Billing Record Objections When It Failed to Attack Omissions Through Discovery Motion. In the next case, the Sixth District—in UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, Case No. H033862 (6th Dist. Jan. 22, 2010) (unpublished)—affirmed a $402,596.40 fee award under a contractual provision when sustaining a trial
Third District Reinforces the Waiver Principle in an Unpublished Decision. Although arising in the context of an appeal by an in pro per litigant, the Third District in Westlake v. Willms, Case Nos. C058379/C059434 (3d Dist. Dec. 23, 2009) (unpublished) helps reinforce a lesson iterated in many of our past posts under the category
Liquidated Damages Clause Found Valid; Fees/Costs Award Sustained Also. This next decision should be of substantive interest to both developers and our readers interested in fee issues. Although unpublished, Beck Properties, Inc. v. Hameed, Case No. C058279 (Dec. 11, 2009) decided that an anti-speculation clause in a purchase agreement between a developer and
Third District Rebuffs Generalized Challenges to Fee Award, Finding Many Arguments Waived Based on a Lack of Specificity. Defendant in Allen v. Fulton, Case No. C059088 (3d Dist. Dec. 9, 2009) (unpublished) got hammered with a $217,422 fees/costs award ($212,473 of which consisted of fees) after summary judgment motions and a bench trial,
