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 Albert v. Baccouche, Case No. B249798 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 2, 2014) (unpublished) is yet another reminder of what we have harped on in many posts: separately appeal a postjudgment costs/fee order in order to preserve a challenge to the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
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 In Meaux v. Springfield, Case No. A139840 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 16, 2014) (unpublished), defense prevailing on a SLAPP motion requested $39,104.58 in fees/costs (inclusive of a 2.0 multiplier, but not for “fees
Court of Appeal Did Not Impose Sanctions, Apparently Finding Further Appeal Fees/Costs Might Punish Enough. Zeppenfeld v. Reilley, Case No. A138668 (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 30, 2014) (unpublished) again reinforces a lesson we have stressed many a time—appeal an entry of an order denying a fee motion, even if a later judgment confirms that
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 In Sanai v. Pfeiffer, Case No. B246349 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 26, 2014) (unpublished), an in pro per attorney sued an ex-client defendant for $149,240 in legal fees.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
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
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
$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
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
