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 In Henderson v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B209871 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 29, 2009) (unpublished), defendant sheriff prevailed after the trial court directed a verdict on certain claims in a civil rights excessive […]
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 In Bohl v. Pryke, Case No. E045405 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 1, 2009) (unpublished), a defendant in a “reporter’s shield law” case refused to reveal sources.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
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
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
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 December 12, 2008) (unpublished), a case reported by
Third District So Holds in Recent Unpublished Decision.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
Second District, Division 7 Remands for Further Fee Proceedings. City of Los Angeles won attorney’s fees against a replacement contractor selected by a bonding surety, where surety and replacement contractor entered into contractual agreements incorporating original agreements between City and the replaced contractor. Replacement contractor lost in the construction litigation, with the trial court
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
