Cases: Allocation

Allocation; Landlord/Tenant: $29,490 In Contractual Fees To Married Residential Tenants Prevailing In Unlawful Detainer Action Was No Abuse of Discretion

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Landlord/Tenant

Lack Of Hearing Reporter’s Transcript Hampered Review, But Attorney Efforts Benefitting Joint Tenants, Even If Attorney Only Formally Retained By One Tenant, Was Appropriate.             In Ahdoot v. Chernyavskiy, Case No. B303359 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 4, 2020) (unpublished), landlord lost an unlawful detainer on summary judgment to two married residents based on a […]

Allocation, Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Multipliers: Santana Decision Now Published

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Apportionment Between Song-Beverly Act Fees/Costs And Other Causes Of Action, Where Fees Are Not Permitted, Not Necessary Where Claims Are Inextricably Intertwined.               In our September 29, 2020 post, we discussed Santana v. FCA US, LLC, Case Nos. G057244/G058020 (4th Dist., Div. 3), which was unpublished at the time.             In Santana,

Allocation, Employment, Section 998: Plaintiff Employee, In Unlimited Civil Case, Winning Limited Jurisdiction Damages Properly Awarded Wage/Hour And Break Claim Intertwined Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

Section 998 Cost-Shifting Did Not Preempt Labor Code Cost-Shifting Provisions So As To Allow Fee and Costs Recovery To Certain Defendants.             Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc., Case No. D075479 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 15, 2020) (unpublished) is an interesting unpublished decision discussing the intersection of Labor Code costs shifting and CCP § 998

Allocation, Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Multiplier: Although Fraudulent Concealment Compensatory And Punitive Damages Were Reversed, $510,637.87 Fee/Costs Award Under Song-Beverly Act Case Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Failure To Apportion/Double Counting Lodestar And Enhancement Arguments Not Supported By The Record.             In many cases, a fees-seeking litigant needs to apportion between fee entitlement and non-fee entitlement claims, unless the thrust of the case involved a fee entitlement case so that it was inextricably intertwined with a non-fee case.  If so, even a

Allocation, Partition: Code Civ. Proc. § 874.010 Attorney’s Fee Award Of $105,147.50 For Partition Claim Affirmed Notwithstanding The Inclusion Of Fees Incurred For Other Causes Of Action

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Partition

All Of The Claims And Defenses In The Action Were Inextricable Intertwined.             In partition actions, Code Civ. Proc. § 874.010(a) authorizes an award of “[r]easonable attorney’s fees incurred or paid by a party for thee common benefit,” and Code Civ. Proc. § 874.040 requires the trial court to “apportion the costs of partition

Allocation, Construction, Insurance: Lower Court’s Denial Of Any Fee Recovery To General Contractor’s Insurer For Defending The GC, Based On Equitable Subrogation, Was Error

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: Insurance

GC’s Insurer Was Entitled To Equitable Reimbursement Of Defense Costs Relating To Subcontractor Work As Well As A Reasonable Allegation Relating To Reasonable “Mixed” Defense Efforts.             In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.), Case No. E068353 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 10, 2010) (published), a trial judge denied

Allocation, Construction, Reasonableness Of Fees: $222,202.75 Contractual Fee Award In Favor Of Property Owners And Against General Contractor, After Offsets, Was Not Erroneous Except For One Minor Deduction In Gnarly Construction Defect Dispute.

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

$557,441.75 Was The Fee Request, But Owners’ Apportionment Not Credited Below Or On Appeal, So Reduced Award Was The Result.             In Stolp v. Murphy-True, Inc., Case Nos. A154770/A155426 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 4, 2020) (unpublished), a litigation snafu resulted over a $3 million-plus remodel job at plaintiffs’ home, with plaintiffs suing for water

Allocation, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Prevailing Plaintiff Correctly Awarded $182,000 Under Contractual Fees Clause After Winning $455,000 In Damages After A Lengthy Court Trial

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

Fees Award Should Not Get Offset Against Damages, And Trial Judge Awarded Contingency Arrangement Percentage As Fees—Dispensing With The Need For Review Of Detailed Bills.             Prevailing plaintiff in Pham v. Nguyen, Case No. H044958 (6th Dist. Apr. 15, 2020) (unpublished), on the heels of winning $455,000 in damages, moved for contractual attorney’s fees.  The

Allocation, Landlord/Tenant, Prevailing Party, Reasonableness Of Fees: Prevailing Tenant Was Entitled To Prevailing Party Fees Under Oakland’s Tenant Protection Ordinance Fee-Shifting Provision As Against Defendant Landlord

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

However, Prevailing Party Properly Awarded Apportioned Fees Of $49,875 Rather Than Requested $318,214 In Fees Against Defendant Landlord; Prevailing Defendant Property Manager Improperly Granted Routine Costs Because Motion Did Not Mention That Defendant And Nothing Showed The Costs Were Incurred.             In Goins v. Williams, Case Nos. A152828/A153632 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 14, 2020)

Allocation, Prevailing Party: Fee Award For All Incurred Fees To Prevailing Plaintiff Who Amended Complaint To Add Cause Of Action Providing Statutory Basis For Fee Recovery Just Before Trial Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party

All Causes Of Action Related To The Same Common Issue And Were So Intertwined That Apportionment Was Impracticable.             For an interesting discussion of The Independent Wholesale Sales Representatives Contractual Relations Act of 1990 (Civ. Code section 1738.11 et seq.), Newman v. Knit Creations, Inc., Case No. B292659 (2d Dist., Div. 1 March 30,

Scroll to Top