Prevailing Party Was Entitled To Fee Recovery Of $67,830 Based On Fee Clauses In Notes. In R&J Construction, Inc. v. Abadir, Case Nos. A153301/A154101 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 10, 2019) (unpublished), prevailing party obtained a $67,830 fee recovery based on contractual fees provisions in several notes. On appeal, the losing party argued that […]
No Apportionment Required Because Alter Ego Claims Were Involved On Both Causes Of Action; Assertion That Hourly Rates Should Be Lower Did Not Rebut Fee Claimant’s Attorney’s Declaration. In Alvarado v. Freedman, Case No. G055918 (4th Dist., Div. 3 March 28, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff sued defendants for loan repayment, based on a loan agreement
Plaintiffs Recovered $8,500; Sought Fees Of $171,000; Were Awarded Fees Of $37,250. Lack of success in a case can certainly impact fee recovery to prevailing parties, as Almaguer v. Newland Entities, Inc., Case No. C075662 (3d Dist. March 27, 2019) (unpublished), demonstrates. There, two plaintiffs partially prevailed on certain labor/wrongful termination claims, but
Apportionment Was Required In This Context, Plus A Relook At “Block Billing” Despite A 20% Reduction By The Trial Judge On The First Go-Around. In City of Patterson v. Patterson Hotel Associates, Case No. F074038 (5th Dist. Jan. 11, 2019) (unpublished), City of Patterson prevailed on its complaint and defensed a cross-complaint involving a
Section 1021.9 Applies To Land Characteristic As A Whole, Not Just Portion Of Land Trespassed Upon; Pre-Offer Fees And Costs Did Not Disturb The Result Under CCP § 998. In Hoffman v. Superior Ready Mix Concrete, L.P., Case No. D072929 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 19 2018) (published), plaintiff owned property intended to be
Remand Requires To Apportion Fees Expended In Establishing Validity Of Release And Defendants Against Fraud In The Inducement Claims—However, It Did Not Adopt Wilshire Test For Corporate Indemnification. Protech Services, Inc. v. Gillette, Case No. C083975 (3d Dist. Dec. 6, 2018) (unpublished) is an interesting decision on the scope of mandatory indemnification under Corporations
Hybrid Cases Can Be Expensive. Keenan v. Souza, Case Nos. B276437 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 24, 2018) (unpublished) was an LLC dispute with broad contractual fee recovery clauses. Needless to say, certain defendants/cross-complainants prevailed. The trial judge awarded over $825,000 in fees and costs to the prevailing parties, determining the contractual
Although Adjustor Was Represented Jointly With Two Nonprevailing Defendants, Costs Were Carefully Apportioned By Lower Court In Fashioning Costs Award. In Owens v. Bynum, Case No. A152090 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 25, 2018) (unpublished), defendant independent insurance adjustor was awarded costs of $8,148.47 in routine costs against plaintiff after defendant won a demurrer
One Unilateral San Francisco Ordinance Fee-Shifting Provision Did Not Show That Interrelated Fees Spent On Compensable Claims Could Not Be Allowed. Bienkowski v. Lam, Case No. A151579 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 9, 2018) (unpublished) was a situation where a tenant sued a defendant as the undisclosed partner of landlord, alleging that he was
Appealing Defendant Picked Its Spots On Appeal, Awarded As Being Selective! This next case is an illustration where a non-prevailing defendant on peripheral claims appealed selectively on an adverse attorney’s fees and costs award, handsomely awarded by being discreet in what it appealed. In Ajis v. Foreman Financial, Inc., Case No. B280208 (2d
