Cases: Allocation

Allocation, Private Attorney General: Trial Court’s Application Of The Wrong Standard And Inappropriate Basis For Denying Prevailing Plaintiff’s Postappeal Section 1021.5 Motion For Fees Necessitated Remand

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Trial Court Focused On The “Punishment” The Fees Award Would Impose On Defendant For Unsuccessful Appeal Of Judgment Rather Than Examining Determination Factors For Award Under § 1021.5 And Also Erred In Denying Based On Plaintiff’s Failure To Apportion Fees Between His Private Interests And The Public Interest.             In Doe v. Westmont College, […]

Allocation, Section 1717: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Allocation Which Reduced Plaintiff’s Fee Award To $143,257.92 From Requested $800,165.00, Nor In Its Award Of $105,000 In Fees And $4,609.77 In Costs To Prevailing Defendants

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

Plaintiff Did Not Support Its Arguments With An Adequate Record On Appeal, Citations To The Record And Legal Authority.             Newstart Real Estate Investment v. Huang, Case No. B289513 (2d Dist., Div. 8 December 18, 2020) (unpublished) is a breach of contract, fraud, and conspiracy action involving the sale of a Las Vegas Ramada Inn. 

Allocation, Costs: No Abuse Of Discretion Where Trial Court Refused To Tax Costs Among Multiple Defendants Who Settled Out Of The Case Before Trial

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs

Costs Incurred By Plaintiffs In Relation To Other Defendants Were Directly Relevant To Case Against Appealing Defendant And Reasonably Necessary To The Litigation.             In Booker v. Imerys Talc America, Case No. A153995 (1st Dist., Div. 3 December 11, 2020) (unpublished), wife and heirs of decedent continued mesothelioma-related litigation against seven defendants after his death. 

Allocation, Employment, Section 998: Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc. Is Now A Published Decision

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

Labor Code Cost-Shifting Provisions Trumped Code of Civil Procedure Section 998’s Cost-Shifting And Meant No Fees/Costs Recovery For Successful Section 998 Defendants.             We discussed Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc., Case No. D075479 (4th Dist., Div. 1), in our October 17, 2020 post, which was unpublished at the time.             In Cruz, defendants

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

Scroll to Top