Cases: Appealability

Appeal Sanctions/SLAPP: $18,456.58 Fee/Costs Award Affirmed To Defense Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: SLAPP

  Appellate Court Found No Abuse of Discretion, Given Trial Court Reduced From Requested $39,104.58 Fees/Costs—However, 1.5 Multiplier Was Proper.      In Meaux v. Springfield, Case No. A139840 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 16, 2014) (unpublished), defense prevailing on a SLAPP motion requested $39,104.58 in fees/costs (inclusive of a 2.0 multiplier, but not for “fees […]

Appealability/Equity/Sanctions: In Pro Per Litigant Denied $31,000 In Compensatory Legal Fees When Trial Judge Discretionary Granted Relief From Default

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Equity, Cases: Sanctions

Lower Court Did Not Err In Directing That $1,000 Penalty Be Paid By Party Requesting Default Relief to Superior Court Instead. ​In Sanai v. Pfeiffer, Case No. B246349 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 26, 2014) (unpublished), an in pro per attorney sued an ex-client defendant for $149,240 in legal fees. However, the defense filed a

Appealability/Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Defense Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Because She Was Not The Clear Winner

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Easement Dispute Produced Mixed Result, Likely More Pro-Plaintiffs In Nature. ​This one involved a water well easement dispute by adjoining owners, prompting a suit by plaintiffs when defendant locked the pump house and put up a “no trespassing” sign. The lower court ultimately upheld plaintiffs’ right to use of some water from the well, but

Appealability/Prevailing Party: Defense Appealing Only Judgment, But Not Separate Fee Award, Could Challenge Fee Award

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party

  However, Defense Challenges Did Not Prevail On Appeal.      In Polaris Medical Academy, LLC v. Allen, Case No. G045800 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 24, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiffs won a judgment totaling $450,000 against various defendants, with the judgment stating “Plaintiffs shall recover costs in the amount of $___________ and attorneys’ fees in the

Appealability/Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Because Lower Court Erred In Sustaining Demurrer, Party Garnering Fee Award Was Not Prevailing Party

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  $22,230 Fee Award Went POOF!      In Vestar/Kimco Tustin, L.P. V. Sesar, Case No. G048831 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 30, 2014) (unpublished), the lower court sustained a demurrer to a breach of lease action and overruled a demurrer to a breach of guaranty cause of action, with plaintiff filing a voluntary dismissal of

Appealability/SLAPP: Denial Of Slapp Fees To Plaintiff Shows Dual Standard of Review Governing Recovery In This Area

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

Must Show Objective Speciousness and Subjective Bad Faith. ​Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist., Case No. D063980 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 15, 2014) (unpublished) contains a good discussion of the review standard applicable to a lower court ruling denying attorney’s fees to a prevailing SLAPP plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c)(1). ​In this

Appealability/Equity: Appellate Court Reverses Adverse Fee Judgment Based On Parties’ Settlement Stipulation

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Equity

  No Public Policy Concerns Militate Against Honoring Parties’ Settlement.      In GMAC Mortgage v. Sandoval, Case No. E059111 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 8, 2014) (unpublished), lenders won a declaratory relief action with respect to lien priority and were awarded attorney’s fees of $21,284.25 based on a trust deed fees clause. Defendants appealed only

Appealability/Equity: Reversal Of Judgment Against 66 Plaintiffs, 61 Of Which Appealed, Meant Fee Award Against All Gets Reversed

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Equity

  Otherwise, 5 Nonappealing Parties Would Get Stuck With Substantial Fee Exposure Even Though Some Appealing Parties Might Win On Remand.      Appellate courts are comprised of justices, who not only follow the law but attempt to reach a fair result based on the circumstances. Adams v. MHC Colony Park Ltd. Partnership, Case No. F062160

Scroll to Top