Sanctions Order Was Appealable, With Substantial Evidence Supporting It. Pulling tooth from elephant. Nov. 3, 1924. Library of Congress. A patient has a statutory right to a copy of medical records on request, with this right enforceable by a special proceeding for an order to show cause allowing the court to impose […]
Court Rejects Simple “Clerical” Versus “Judicial” Correction Distinction. Ellis v. Ellis, Case No, B248860 (2d Dist., Div. 4 April 2, 2015) (published) is a decision of interest to appellate practitioners and family law practitioners as far as when to appeal from certain judgments (including ones involving attorney’s fees), especially when they are modified
Only Appealable For Judgment Of Dismissal, Disagreeing With Third District Precedent. Although we do not “weigh in” on many decisions, the issue in this case may be destined for California Supreme Court review—given that the jurisprudence is this area is conflicting or (at least) confusing. The issue, boiled down, deals with appealability—when
Also, Appellate Court Warns Litigants/Counsel To Comply With California Rules Of Court Relating To Appellate Procedure. Indulkar v. East Desert Valley Investments, Inc., Case No. G050400 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 10, 2015) (unpublished) has a few lessons, where the appellate court refused to review a fee order because it lacked jurisdiction to
No Fee Motion Papers Provided By Appellant. This case again reminds everyone to make sure an adequate record is prepared in a fee proceeding and to make sure prior merits appeals are preserved if the only grounds for reversal is that the merits ruling was erroneous. Defendant licensed contractor was found liable
Denial Of Fees Would Ignore Realities of “Dual Track” Arbitration/Court Realities Of Modern Litigation. Mesa Shopping Center-East, LLC v. O Hill, Case No. G049205 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 23, 2014) (published) is an interesting case involving the propriety of Civil Code section 1717 court fees where there is a “dual track” case,
Result Was Original Judgment Was Vacated, So No Postjudgment Fee Orders Existed. In Pacific Corp. Group Holdings, LLC v. Keck, Case No. D062277 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 12, 2014) (published), defendant/cross-complainant employee won a substantial $270,547.95 breach of contract verdict against cross-defendant employer. However, he moved for a new trial motion arguing
No Appealable Order, Collateral Order Exception Did Not Apply, And Appellate Court Not Willing To Treat As Writ Petition. Sierra Club and Carmel River Steelhead Association obviously were upset when a lower court denied their private attorney general fee request to recoup $256,934 in fees under CCP § 1021.5. However, that denial
Gotta Separately Appeal the Postjudment Order. Albert v. Baccouche, Case No. B249798 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 2, 2014) (unpublished) is yet another reminder of what we have harped on in many posts: separately appeal a postjudgment costs/fee order in order to preserve a challenge to the order. Here, litigant hit with some
Whether You Need to or Not, Separately Appeal, Separately Appeal …. Plaintiff losing a sexual harassment, retaliation and failure of accommodation suit to the County of Los Angeles was then hit with $40,000 (out of a requested $115,615.50) in attorney’s fees under both CCP § 1038(a) [defense costs, including fees, can be awarded
