Cases: Allocation

Allocation, Prevailing Party, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Prevailing Plaintiff Under Civil Code § 3344 Properly Awarded $137,595.20 In Attorneys’ Fees And $9,523.55 In Costs While Prevailing Defendant Under § 3344 Properly Denied Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Plaintiff – Although Seeking Six-Figures In Damages – Had Achieved His Litigation Purposes Through Damages Verdict of $10,000, But Dismissed Defendant Failed To Meet His Burden As To The Reasonableness Of His Fees Request.             In Dice v. X17, Inc., Case No. B2282448 (2d Dist., Div. 3 September 27, 2019) (unpublished), a celebrity news […]

Allocation, Civil Rights, Employment: No Abuse Of Discretion Where Trial Court Held Employer And VP Jointly And Severally Liable For Attorney Fees With No Apportionment Nor Statutory Fees Cap For CMIA Claim

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Employment

Former Employee Achieved Her Litigation Objectives With Set Of Facts Common To All Causes Of Action.             In Gwin v. Natvan, Case No. B292990 (2d Dist., Div. 1 October 1, 2019) (unpublished), former employee sued employer and its vice-president (husband of employer’s owner) asserting 13 separate causes of action – several of which allowed

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Lodestar, Prevailing Party, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717, Settlement: Reasonable Discretion Exercised In Awarding Defendant Only 20% Of Requested $177,712 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

The Legal Principles Of Civil Code Section 1717 and Santisas Governed.             Both parties appealed the fee results in Rusnak/South Bay v. Glukel Group, Case No. B286513 (2nd Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2019) involving a dispute between landlord and tenant – with tenant plaintiff advancing contract and tort claims against landlord.         

Allocation, Homeowner Associations, Interest, Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Standard of Review: Plaintiff Owner/Developer’s Award Of $1,673,691 In Damages and Entire Fee Request Upheld On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Interest, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Standard of Review

Defendant HOA’s Breach Of Owner/Developer’s Valid Contractual Access Rights Was The Common Core Involved In The Causes Of Action, So Apportionment Of Fees Not Required.             In Millennium-Diamond Road Partners v. Diamond Bar etc., Case No. B285539 (2nd Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 24, 2019) (unpublished), Owner/Developer Millennium sued HOA when it revoked Millennium’s access

Allocation, Civil Rights, Multiplier: Cohabiting Unmarried Couple Tenants Winning $11,970 On FEHA Marital Discrimination Claim, Despite Losing Privacy Invasion And Quiet Enjoyment Claims, Properly Awarded $389,200 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Multipliers

Fees Properly Included A 1.3 Multiplier, With No Allocation Required Because Proof On FEHA And Other Claims Were Intertwined.             Plaintiff tenants, a cohabiting unmarried couple, sued a San Francisco defendant apartment owner for FEHA marital discrimination, invasion of privacy, and breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant based on owner’s actions in attempting to evict

Allocation, Reasonableness Of Fees: $45,000 Fee Award To Prevailing Party In Civil Harassment Restraining Order Case Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Neighborhood Squabble Involving Dogs . . . . ARF!             Kinda hard to believe that neighbors can get into such nasty squabbles, but we chalk it up to human nature.  Unfortunately, dogs—which we believe to be great gifts to mankind—often times are at the center of these disputes.             In this one, Thomas v. Olshansky,

Allocation: Intertwined Contract/Tort Work Justified Fee Award

Cases: Allocation

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

Allocation, Section 1717, Reasonableness Of Fees: 4/3 DCA Affirms Contractual Fee Award To Prevailing Asserted Alter Ego Defendants To The Tune Of $203,940

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

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

Allocation, Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Court Properly Awarded 20% Of Fees Requested By Two Prevailing Plaintiffs In Wage Hour Dispute Where They Had Limited Success

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

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

Allocation, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: City Prevailing On Cross-Complaint Could Not Obtain Recovery Of Unilateral Inverse Condemnation Fees, Which Could Only Be Awarded To Losing Cross-Complainants

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

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

Scroll to Top