Cases: Allocation

Reasonableness Of Fees: If You Are Gonna Challenge, Make Sure You Specify The Bases With Particularity, Whether Substantive Or As To Amount

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  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 Dec. 9, 2009) (unpublished) got hammered with a $217,422 fees/costs award ($212,473 of which consisted of fees) after summary judgment motions and a bench trial, […]

Fee Clause Interpretation and 998 Offers: Court Of Appeal Remands $400,000 Fee Award against Contractor But Affirms Separate $296,148.84 Against Contractor In Favor of Subcontractor

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Fourth District, Division 1 Address Plethora of Fee Issues in Unpublished Decision.      Well, strap your helmets on, readers, because we now synopsize a 75-page unpublished decisions dealing with a cornucopia (a good word in celebration of upcoming Thanksgiving) of attorney’s fees issues under California law.      In The Gifted Schools v. Grahovac Construction Co.,

Fee Clause Interpretation And Allocation: Substantial Fee Award Affirmed Where Fees Clause Was Broad In Nature And All Claims Based On Same Operative Facts

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fourth District, Division 2 Sustains $382,233.25 Fee Award Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.      As we have reminded readers before, a broad fee clause will frequently give winning litigants a “big bonus” for fee recovery purposes: the broader the clause, the better the chances that noncontractual claims will be found to give rise

SLAPP/Malicious Prosection Damages Interplay: SLAPP Fee Ruling Is Not Collateral Estoppel On Awarding Special Damages In Subsequent Malicious Prosecution Case

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fees as Damages, Cases: SLAPP

Second District Determines SLAPP Ruling Does Determine Amount of Motion to Strike Fees, But Remaining Attorney’s Fees Are Fair Game and Defendant Bears Burden of Allocating Out Unreasonable Fees. The next decision is an interesting one that we predict will have more and more play as SLAPP motions and later malicious prosecution awards interact in

Costs And Fees: Defendants “Unified In Interest” Liable For Routine Costs And Are Denied Substantial Attorney’s Fees Because Allocation Was Proper

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division 3 Address Many, Many Procedural Issues in Unpublished Opinion.      In Matusek v. Benn, Case No. B206776 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 29, 2009) (unpublished), two sets of defendants (the Murad and Benn defendants, each set composed of businesses and their principals) contracted to create an infomercial using an appearance by plaintiff

Civil Code Section 1717: Ninth Circuit Holds Tenants Winning On Preemption Issue Entitled To Fees Because Issue Arose “On The Contract”

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Preemption, Cases: Section 1717

  Federal Court of Appeals Sustains $180,029.50 Fee Award to Tenants.      In Barrientos v. 1801-182 Morton LLC, Case No. 07-56697 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2009) (certified for publication), tenants won summary judgment and permanent injunctive relief with respect to illegal notices of eviction served by a landlord arguing that Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance

Prevailing Party: Broadly-Worded Fees Clause Gave Rise To Fee Exposure Even Under Santisas

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Prevailing Party

Sixth District Also Resolves Joinder, Motion Timeliness, and Apportionment Issues.      The next case is a virtual “issue cross-over” study for such subjects as prevailing party after a dismissal without prejudice (Santisas issue); joinder; motion timeliness; and apportionment. Walewski v. Williams, Case No. H033026 (6th Dist. Oct. 8, 2009) (unpublished) is worth reading to see

Broad Fees Clause And Failure To Challenge Excessiveness Of Fee To Winner Spells Trouble For Losing Country Club Members

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Fourth District, Division 1 Affirms $779,955.97 Postjudgment Fees/Costs Award.      The next case covers several cross-over issues: fees clause interpretation; apportionment between covered and noncovered claims; and reasonableness of fees.      Here we go.      In Urquhart v. Del Mar Country Club, Case No. D052711 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 28, 2009) (unpublished), a

Civil Code Section 1717 Apportionment: Trial Court Did Not Err In Failing To Apportion Fees Where Conjoined Claims Cannot Be Separate For Fee Recovery Purposes

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 4 So Rules in Unpublished Decision.      Apportionment of attorney’s fees, as between covered and uncovered claims, is a discretionary call, as the next decision demonstrates.      Hur v. Lee, Case No. B210502 c/w BC361921 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 9, 2009) (unpublished) involved a sushi restaurant seller and his brokers, who

Civil Rights: Rejected Informal Settlement Offers Can Be Used As An Indicator Of Success For Purposes of Calculating Attorney’s Fees Lodestar

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

Third Circuit Court of Appeals So Holds Under 42 U.S. C. Section 1988; California State Court Decisions Split In Analogous Areas, But Ninth Circuit Disagrees.      On July 23, 2009, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in Lohman v. Duryea Borough, __ F.3d __, 2009 WL 2183056 (3d Cir. 2009), affirmed a district judge’s decision

Scroll to Top