Res Judicata Effect of Confirmed Chapter 13 Plan Is Limited. Edwards v. Broadwater Casitas Care Center, Case No. B247596 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 5, 2013) (published) decided that a plaintiff could appeal a trial court’s adverse fees and costs order of $158,471.25 and $19,836, respectively, despite the confirmation of a chapter 13 […]
Said It Before, Will Say It Again … Separately Appeal, Separately Appeal. Acting Presiding Justice Rylaarsdam, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, in Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Assn. v. Colombo, Case No G047064 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 3, 2013) (unpublished), reinforced a message we have said a lot during our blog–separately appeal
Appellate Court Followed Fish v. Guevarra, Finding It Was Rightly Decided. Many times in blogging over the years, we have stressed that postjudgment fees and costs rulings should be separately appealed as a preventive measure. The next case reinforces the prudence in following this general protocol. Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc., Case
Also, Plaintiff Only Obtained a “Mixed” Win Rather Than An “Unqualified” One. In Chan v. Lo, Case No. B239783 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 9, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained some relief (with the court determining she owed less than the face amount of a promissory note), but still was found to owe note
Subsequent Judgment Was Not Materially Substantial So As To Trigger New Appeal Time Commencement. Darden Painting, Inc. v. Glass Architects, Case No. A132846 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 9, 2013) (unpublished) is a case where a litigant challenging certain costs ruling was pretty much shut out on procedural grounds–failure to timely appeal. What
CCP § 685.040 Was Dispositive. County of Alameda v. Ottovich, Case No. A133891 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 17, 2013) (unpublished) is a reminder that postjudgment enforcement fee recoveries have to meet the requirements of CCP § 685.040, with the simple recitations in a judgment not providing the necessary predicate for fee entitlement.
Also, Clues Offered on Unlawful Retainer Agreement Arbitration Clauses. Weissman Wolff et al. v. Singh, Case No. B240550 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 28, 2013) (unpublished) is a longstanding–if not long running–dispute between an ex-client and ex-attorneys. It teaches two lessons: 1. One, from an earlier appeal, is that a retainer agreement
In pro per husband got hit with a $5,000 discovery sanction in Marriage of Maynard, Case No. H035859 (6th Dist. Apr. 12, 2013) (unpublished). He appealed, but the appellate court found the order was not immediately appealable. Reason? CCP § 904.1(a)(11), (12) says $5,000 or less for a sanctions award cannot be appealed until
Marathon Funding, LLC v. Paramount Pictures, Case No. B240723 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 4, 2013) (Unpublished). In this first one, defendant won more than $690,548.90 in posttrial attorney’s fees under an investment agreement providing fees to the winner “in any action, suit, or other proceeding [that] is instituted concerning or arising out
Appellate Panel Faces Many Costs Issues, Siding With Krikorian That Order Denying Motion to Tax Appellate Costs Is Appealable. Although dealing with the propriety of a lower court order awarding respondents $1,037.25 in appellate costs for court reporter fees in preparing a reporter’s transcript, the appellate court affirmed in Williams v. Safire, Case
