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 December 12, 2008) (unpublished), a case reported by […]
Third District So Holds in Recent Unpublished Decision.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Fourth District, Division 1 Sends Such a Message in Unpublished Decision.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
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 In Pharmacie Nouvelle, Inc. v. A&G Wilshire, LLC, Case No. B199590 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 30, 2008) (unpublished), the Second District, Division 7 reminded us that the trial court has considerable discretion in deciding whether to require a prevailing party under Civil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
