Cases: Appealability

Appealability, Reasonableness Of Fees: Sham Guaranty Defense Case Producing Divergent Results Also Tally A “Wash” On Fee Awards In The End

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Dueling Fee Motions Really Come Close To Negating Each Other.     Iota Five, LLC v. Dobron, Case No. G050738 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 11, 2015) (unpublished) was a case where there were fee clauses in guaranties, with the two defendants—represented by the same counsel—gaining a complete victory on a sham guaranty defense as […]

Appealability, Family Law: Appealability Of Corrected Judgments On Fee Issues Depends On Whether Substantial Modification Involved

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Family Law

  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

Appealability, SLAPP: Appeal Of Subsequent Fee Order, After SLAPP Grant Dismissing Action, Was Not Independently Appealable

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

  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

Appealability: Failure To Separately Appeal Fees Award And Failure To Provide Fees Order Fatal At Appellate Stage

Cases: Appealability

  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      Indulkar v. East Desert Valley Investments, Inc., Case No. G050400 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 10, 2015) (unpublished) has a few lessons, where the appellate court refused to review a fee order because it lacked jurisdiction to

Appealability: Defendant’s Appeal Of Substantial Fee Award Affirmed Based On Failure To Provide Adequate Record And Dismissal Of Merits Orders In Prior Appeal

Cases: Appealability

  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

Appealability/Arbitration/Prevailing Party: Defendants/Winning Parties Entitled To Renew Court Action Fee Request After Voluntarily Dismissal Of Court Action Occurred Following Denial Of Provisional Relief And Submission Of Arbitration Hearing

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party

  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,

Appealability: Both Sides’ Appeal From Fee Denial Orders Nonappealable Because Trial Judge Granted New Trial Conditionally, With Additur Which Was Not Accepted

Cases: Appealability

  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

Appealability: Stipulation Allowing For Further Litigation By Parties Meant Two Other Interveners Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Appealability

  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

Appealability/Section 998: Loser’s Failure To Appeal Postjudgment Cost-Shifting Order Waived Challenge To Order Denying Tax Costs Motion

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Section 998

  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

Scroll to Top