Third District Reinforces the Waiver Principle in an Unpublished Decision.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 Dec. 23, 2009) (unpublished) helps reinforce a lesson iterated in many of our past posts under the category […]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 Although unpublished, Beck Properties, Inc. v. Hameed, Case No. C058279 (Dec. 11, 2009) decided that an anti-speculation clause in a purchase agreement between a developer and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 Dec. 9, 2009) (unpublished) got hammered with a $217,422 fees/costs award ($212,473 of which consisted of fees) after summary judgment motions and a bench trial,
Fourth District, Division 1 Address Plethora of Fee Issues in Unpublished Decision. Well, strap your helmets on, readers, because we now synopsize a 75-page unpublished decisions dealing with a cornucopia (a good word in celebration of upcoming Thanksgiving) of attorney’s fees issues under California law.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.,
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
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
Second District, Division 3 Address Many, Many Procedural Issues in Unpublished Opinion. In Matusek v. Benn, Case No. B206776 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 29, 2009) (unpublished), two sets of defendants (the Murad and Benn defendants, each set composed of businesses and their principals) contracted to create an infomercial using an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
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
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
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
