Cases: Allocation

Personal Injury Cases: Liability For Attorney’s Fees Not Includable Under the Made-Whole Rule in Auto Insurance Med-Pay Cases

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Insurance

  California Supreme Court Decides Fee Are Subject to Separate Equitable Apportionment in a Pro Rata Sharing Manner.      Here is one for personal injury/insurance defense cases in boutique first party, no-fault medical payment (med-pay) insurance payment cases. This may narrow our readers who have interest in this post, but here you go anyway.      […]

Hate Crime Statutes: Arbitration Expense and Fee Award Reversed And Remanded Because Armendariz Prohibition on Expenses Applies To Statutory Hate Crime Claims

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division One, Does Remand For Proper Expense/Fee Determination and For Examination of Allocation Issues.      Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare, 24 Cal.4th 83, 110-113 (2000) determined that arbitral expenses beyond what a plaintiff litigant would have borne in a court case cannot be imposed in cases involving statutory rights enacted for a public

Civil Code Section 1717: Litigants’ Failure To Be Adjudged General Partners, Although Winning A Small Quantum Meruit Award, Justified Non-prevailing Party Conclusion

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

Result Was An Adverse Fee/Cost Award of Over $275,000      In Gupta v. Shue, Case No. B198449 (Apr. 30, 2009) (unpublished), both sides engaged in bitter, protracted litigation over whether each received, by assignment, a general partnership interest in a real estate limited partnership—with the limited partnership caught in the middle of the litigation. After

Costs: “Unity Of Interest” Doctrine Gives Discretion To Trial Courts In Awarding Routine Costs

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs

Second District, Division 5 Also Finds Discovery Referee, Mediation, and Computerized Document Control/Exhibit Costs Can Be Discretionarily Awarded.      In Henderson v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B209871 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 29, 2009) (unpublished), defendant sheriff prevailed after the trial court directed a verdict on certain claims in a civil rights excessive

Discovery Sanctions: Court Of Appeal Sustains $29,180 Discovery Sanctions Fee Award

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Fourth District, Division 2 Finds Winning Litigant Properly Allocated Fees.      In Bohl v. Pryke, Case No. E045405 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 1, 2009) (unpublished), a defendant in a “reporter’s shield law” case refused to reveal sources. However, he also apparently refused to answer legitimate discovery, drawing the lower court’s ire. The trial court

Civil Code Section 1717 and Fee Clauses Interpretation: Appellate Court Reverses $1,370,604 Fee Award Because Some Recovery Was On Uncovered Fraud Counts And Winner’s Limited Success Required Some Further Apportionment

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

First District, Division 4 Believed Award Needed to Apportion Out Some Fraud Work and Take Into Account Plaintiff’s Limited Success on the Promissory Note Claims.      Who says that appellate courts blindly rubberstamp fee awards by trial courts? The next case certainly demonstrates that this is not the case, with the reviewing courts making sure

Contempt Attorney’s Fees Under Code Of Civil Procedure Section 1218(a) Are Vacated Based On Failure To Apportion And On Due Process Grounds

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Fourth District, Division 3 Also Finds That Fee Clarifying Substantiation in Reply Brief Was Too Late Unless Opponent Given Opportunity for Further Response.      Code of Civil Procedure section 1218(a) provides for attorney’s fees to “the party initiating the contempt” for fees which that party incurred “in connection with the contempt proceeding.” It is

Postscript to Ivers v. Allstate

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Insurance

Petition Pending in California Supreme Court      One of the pleasures of blogging is that it is interactive, and we hear (if one can hear email) frequently from our readers.  Jeffrey I. Ehrlich, one of the appellate lawyers in Ivers v. Allstate, 2008, WL 5197119 (3d Dist. December 12, 2008) (unpublished), a case reported by

Civil Code Section 1717: No Apportionment Necessary Where Bank’s Demand On Completion Guaranty Made Everything Interrelated

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

Third District So Holds in Recent Unpublished Decision.      Under our category “Allocation,” we have reviewed cases arising under Civil Code section 1717 in which courts do and do not require apportionment of work between contract/noncontract claims for purposes of awarding fees. The basic test is that apportionment is not required where claims are “so

Scroll to Top