Fourth District, Division 1 Sends Such a Message in Unpublished Decision. In our category “Cases: Allocation,” we have explored when apportionment of fees is necessary in a fee petition involving time spent on claims subject to a fee-shifting statute or time expended on noncovered claims. Although it is a discretionary judgment call for the […]
First District, Division 2 Demonstrates Appellate Scrutiny Of Basis For Fee Award. In past posts (see, e.g., our July 15, 2008 post on Patel v. Sagar), we have reviewed appellate decisions involving scrutiny of arbitration awards. Several decisions have affirmed arbitrator fee awards even though there was no clear basis, either by contract or
Fourth District, Division One Decision Shows the Right Way to Do It! In our category “Cases: Insurance,” we have highlighted the Brandt fees apportionment issue for insureds obtaining fee awards in their favor for purposes of recouping benefits under their insurance policies. The next case is a good illustration on how to properly
Second District, Division 7 Affirms the Breadth of Trial Court Discretion. In Pharmacie Nouvelle, Inc. v. A&G Wilshire, LLC, Case No. B199590 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 30, 2008) (unpublished), the Second District, Division 7 reminded us that the trial court has considerable discretion in deciding whether to require a prevailing party under Civil
Third District Affirms Refusal to Award Any Fees to Insured Who Balked at Apportionment. Co-contributors Marc and Mike have written an article, “When The American Rule Doesn’t Apply: Attorney’s Fees As Damages In California Litigation,” published in 21 California Litigation, No. 3, at pages 19, 22-24 (2008), which has a discussion on attorney’s fees
Section 1717 Fees Are Affirmed As to Husband, Reversed and Remanded As to Wife; Home Improvement Statutory Fees Are Affirmed As to Both Husband and Wife. Talk about a wild one. If any of you readers believe that legal cases do not mimic real life, you need to read and stay tuned for our
Fourth District, Division Two Also Awards $6,000 Appellate Attorney’s Fees Without Remanding Back to Trial Court. Defendant won three successive anti-SLAPP motions that were affirmed on appeal. Defendant was entitled to a mandatory fee award under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c). Defendant requested that the lodestar fees of $55,505 (based on a
First District, Division Two Reverses Fee Award For Further Remand Proceedings to Scrutinize Substantial Fee Award. In our “Cases: Fee Substantiation” category, we have reviewed past decisions showing that California has a fairly “loosey goosey” standard for substantiating the amounts claimed in attorney’s fee petition requests. However, the next case illustrates
Fourth District, Division One Reverses Fee Denial Based on Hsu v. Abbara. We survey unpublished decisions because they frequently reinforce distinctions that get lost in translation because of the diffuse opinions on the “prevailing party” concept in California attorney’s fees award jurisprudence. The next case reminds us that the “prevailing party”
First District, Division Three Affirms Large Fee Award and Adds Costs on Appeal in Favor of Contractor. Fee shifting statutes can have disastrous consequences, shifting the risk allocation in dramatic fashion such that fees get awarded to a winning party even though they dwarf the amount at issue in the underlying
