Appeal Of Prior Merits Addition Of New Judgment Debtor Order Did Not Divest Trial Court Of Jurisdiction To Rule On Fee Motion. In SMA Liquidating Corp. v. Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLP, Case No. B287960 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 13, 2019) (unpublished), the trial judge allowed a second request for consideration of […]
There Was No Ruling To Be Appealed From. In Kottler v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B278276 (2d Dist., Div. 1 February 4, 2019) (unpublished), next door neighbors successfully obtained mandamus over a zoning adjustment made in favor of another neighbor. Petitioners submitted a proposed judgment indicating that they were entitled to fees
However, Merits Order Was Reversed, So No Fees Would Be Awarded To Prior Prevailing Party. In Lall-Yepez v. Pukka, Case No. B283975 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 14, 2019) (unpublished), respondent won a civil harassment restraining order issued under CCP § 527.6 against appellant, who appealed. However, the restraining order expired by its terms,
Lower Court Had No Power To Change Prior Judgment And Then Award Fees. The result in this case may sound harsh, but it appears to be legally sound. In Schermer v. Upland Cascade, L.P., Case No. D072997 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 11, 2019) (unpublished), a first superior court judge “struck” class allegations
Post-Judgment Fee Proceeding Considered Both Entitlement And Amount, So Failure To Mention Fee Award In Notice Of Appeal Was Fatal. Sanders v. Chun, Case No. B284704 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 18, 2018) (unpublished) demonstrates a lesson we have posted on many times before: protectively appeal a post-judgment fee order even if might be
Appellate Court Did Note Split On Appealability Issue Which Was Unnecessary To Resolve. A litigant only appealed a SLAPP ruling, never mentioning a fee award as also being challenged in the notice of appeal. That made it an easy call for the 2/8 DCA in Mostafavi v. Kingsley, Case No. B286081 (2d Dist., Div.
No Entitlement Determination Made In Judgment, So Separate Appeal Of Later Fee Order Required. We do not want to drum a theme we have stressed before, which is to separately appeal fee determinations. We are in the Holidays, so – pa rum pum pum (ala Drummer’s Boy lyrics on a Holiday song) – we
Decision Reminds Us That Probate Court Orders, For Appealability Purposes, Are Determined Under the Probate Code. Armstead v. De Macias, Case No. B284275 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 16, 2018) (unpublished) involved beneficiaries’ appeal of a probate court determination that $19,125 in attorney’s fees and $537.94 in costs should be awarded to trustee for
Result Was Defendant Had 25 Days After Remittitur To Pay Fee/Costs Vacate Award, With Dissenting Justice Believing That The Fees/Costs Award Should Be Reduced Down By Another $17,250. This next case, F&S Investment Properties v. Nguyen-Stevenson, Case Nos. B281031/B281973 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 9, 2018) (unpublished), is a 2-1 decision regarding stay appealability
Failure To Do So Doomed Appeal In This Case. We will admit that the jurisprudence in this area is somewhat confusing in nature and fact dependent. But it does not vary from the lesson that we have posted on before based upon results in actual cases: separately appeal postjudgment fee awards, do not take
