Cases: Allocation

Deadlines, Section 1717, Allocation, and Section 998: Fourth District, Division 3 Addresses Hodgepodge Of Fee/Costs Issues

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  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appellate opinions along the way, V3I v. Western Digital Corp., Case No. G041386 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 29, 2010) (unpublished) finally ran its course, with the final appeal being from a $289,000 costs award and […]

Requests for Admissions: Court Of Appeal Reverses $55,420 Costs-of-Proof Award Against Legal Malpractice Plaintiff

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Requests for Admission

  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

Insurance: In Which the Court of Appeal Rules Insurer “Must Lie In the Bed It Made”

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Insurance, Cases: Mediation, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Standard of Review

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

Section 998: Lump Sum 998 Offer Made To Class Representative of Multiple Classes Found To Be Invalid

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Section 998

Fourth District, Division 1 So Rules, Assuming 998 Offers Are Valid in a Certified Class Situation.      Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co., Case No. D054369 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 15, 2010) (certified for publication) is an interesting decision where significant fees were awarded in a class action involving a California consumer-shifting fee statute. However,

Homeowner Associations: Trial Court’s Denial Of Separate Fee Requests For Prevailing In Homeowner Dispute Was Erroneous

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Homeowner Associations

Lower Court Erred in Failing to Find Fee Entitlement, to Determine Prevailing Party Status, or to Make Any Apportionments in Summarily Denying Diverse Defense Fee Requests.      Trial courts do have a duty to examine fee entitlement, to determine prevailing party status, and to make any apportionments when examining diverse fee requests by different defendants.

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Award Of Partial Fees To Winning Defendants In Statutory Action For Injunctive Relief Under CCP § 527.6(i)

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Trial Court Appropriately Apportioned Out Fee Work Unrelated to Statutory Injunctive Relief Claim.      Generally, no award of attorney’s fees is available in an invasion of privacy action. However, in a statutory action for injunctive relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(i) (a statutory harassment/violence statute), the prevailing party may be awarded court costs

Eminent Domain: Substantial Inverse Condemnation Fee Award Reversed Because Trial Court Did Not Explain Why It Chose Contingency Fee Amount Versus Hourly Fee Amount

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Eminent Domain

  Lower Court Failed to Analyze the Factors in Yuki.      After plaintiffs won a bench award of over $3.4 million in a nuisance/inverse condemnation action, the Second District, Division Two, in Karim v. City of Pomona, Case No. B210049 (May 18, 2010) (unpublished), reversed a favorable attorney’s fees award in favor of plaintiff homeowners

Section 1717: Although Legal Error Present In Not Finding Fee Entitlement, Fee Denial Affirmed Because Of Failure To Apportion

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Standard of Review

  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

Section 1717 And Fees Clause Interpretation: Broad Fees Clause Meant Trial Court Erred In Denying Fee Recovery To Prevailing Mortuary

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

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

Scroll to Top