Cases: Appealability

Appealability/Section 998: Plaintiff’s Failure To Appeal Order To Tax Costs Ruling Was Fatal To Asking For More Expert Witness Fees Via 998 Offer

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Section 998

       Plaintiff won a procuring cause case against a well-known broker, which successfully brought a motion to tax certain costs claimed by plaintiff.      In Praham v. Pickford Real Estate, Inc., Case No. D062477 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 8, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff appealed claiming, among other things, he should have obtained an additional

Appealability/Discovery/Sanctions: Ninth Circuit Decides That Non-Party’s Appeal Of Interlocutory Orders After Date Of Final Judgment Is Timely

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Sanctions But Remands for Cost-Shifting in Favor of Non-Party in FRCP 45 Subpoena Dispute.      The Ninth Circuit has ended the year with a “bang” as far as clarifying non-party appeal rights and the circumstances under which subpoena compliance cost shifting is mandatory under F.R.Civ.P. 45.      The opinion

Appealability/Section 1717: Nonsignatories Standing In Shoes Of Contractual Party Faced Fee Exposure Under Credit Application Fee Clauses

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717

  Appellate Fees After Prior Reversal Properly Appealable Under Collateral Order Doctrine.      Defendants appealed from an assessment of $47,852.77 in appellate fees resulting from a prior appeal (involving a reversal) in Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com, Case No. G047737 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 23, 2013) (unpublished), where the appellate fees were awarded on remand.

Appealability/Class Action: Class Counsel Has Standing To Appeal Fee Award, With Appellate Court Reversing Lower Court Order Awarding Only Fraction Of Requested Fees And Incentive Award Under Clear Sailing Provision

Cases: Appealability

  Incorrect Legal Standards Used by Lower Court in Fixing Fees/Incentive Award.     Clear Sailing?  S.S. Vestris disaster. c1928.  Library of Congress.       Ruiz v. Calif. State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau, Case Nos. A136275/A136395 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 20, 2013) (partially published; discussion of why fee/incentive awards reversed, not published) involved a class action

Arbitration: Broad Non-Appealability Clause In Arbitration Clause Found Unenforceable So Merits Of Arbitration Award Allocating Fees Could Be Considered

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Arbitration

  Fraud, Arbitrator Impartiality, Arbitrator Misconduct, and Arbitrator Exceeding Power Type Claims Could Not Be Found Immune From Review Based On Contractual Provision.      In In re: Wal-Mart Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation, Case No. 11-17778 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2013) (published), a district court confirmed an arbitration award allocating attorney’s fees in a

Appealability: Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Plan Confirmation Order Did Not Preclude Plaintiff From Challenging Trial Court Fees/Costs Award

Cases: Appealability

  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

Appealability: Gotta Separately Appeal Fee Awards In Most Instances

Cases: Appealability

  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

Appealability/Costs/Section 998: Defendant’s Failure To Appeal Motion To Tax Costs Ruling After Entry of Judgment Meant Appellate Court Lacked Jurisdiction To Review Costs Ruling

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

  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

Appealability/Prevailing Party: Failure To Include Answer To Complaint And Opposition To Fee Motion Presented Inadequate Appellate Record To Review Fee Challenges

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party

  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

Appealability/Deadlines: Appellant Failed To Preserve Costs Challenges By Failing to Timely File From Original Judgment

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Deadlines

  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

Scroll to Top