Cases: Appealability

Arbitration Petition Denial: Fees Not In Order Where Denial Was Only An Interim Procedural Victory

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Arbitration

Third District Distinguishes Its Facts From Otay in Unpublished Decision.      In California, attorney’s fees are generally not recoverable for interim procedural victories.   The “prevailing party,” for purposes of fee recovery, usually must await a final deposition on the merits. However, there are exceptions.      For example, Otay River Constructors v. San Diego Expressway, 158 […]

Sanctions: $8,836 In Various Sanctions Affirmed Against Plaintiff Losing Claims Through Demurrer Or Summary Judgment

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Sanctions

Court of Appeal Reverses $15,611.50 in 128.7 Sanctions Because “Safe Harbor” Papers Were Not Identical to Filed 128.7 Motion Papers.      In a lengthy but informative unpublished opinion, the Fourth District, Division One affirmed and reversed some sanctions components assessed against a plaintiff who was defensed through demurrer and summary judgment law-and-motion proceedings in his

Appealability: Separately Appeal A Postjudgment Fee Award Or Suffer The Cruel Sword of Dismissal!

Cases: Appealability

  Second District, Division 2 Reinforces Message Sent in Prior Posts.      In our category: “Cases: Appealability,” we have stressed an important message that emerges from California state court cases: notwithstanding some nuances in unusual situations, litigants wishing to challenge attorney’s fees awards should always appeal the postjudgment fees award in order to preserve appellate

POOF! Principle: Top 6 Cases In Last Eight Months

Cases: Appealability, Cases: POOF!

     We are pleased that our fellow blawger, Greg May, presiding at The California Blog of Appeal, has recognized our inestimable contribution of the Poof Principle to California attorney's fees jurisprudence in his January 28, 2009 post.  The American Heritage Dictionary (online) defines "poof" thusly:  "Used to indicate a sudden vanishing: The magician waved a

Mixed Result In Decade Long Litigation: Substantial Attorney’s Fees Award Goes “Poof” When Plaintiff Should Have Been Given Leave To Amend, But Plaintiff Denied Post-Judgment Enforcement Fees

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: POOF!

Second District, Division 7 Publishes Decision in Decade Long Battle Arising From Credit Impairment Allegations.      Although too long to recite in detail (43 pages in length), Sanai v. Saltz, Case Nos. B198217 & B202787 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 26, 2009) (certified for publication) chronicles a donnybrook between a former in pro per renter

Costs: Order Directing Set Aside of Settlement Funds Based On Costs Award Results In Issuance Of Appellate Mandate Writ

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Costs

Second District, Division 2 Overturns Set Aside Order, But Does Not Pass on Validity of Lien.      A defense judgment involving a costs award is usually automatically stayed without bond pending an appeal by the impacted party, such that execution efforts cannot go forward until the appeal is final. (Vadas v. Sosnowski, 210 Cal.App.3d 471,

Appealability: Failure to Timely File Reconsideration Ruling Resulted In Dismissal of Appeal Challenging $70,408.75 Fee Award

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Deadlines

Fourth District, Division Three Determines Notice of Reconsideration Ruling Does Not Need Any “Magic” Language to Trigger Running of Appeal Period.      The next case is an interesting reminder to hit the books when determining what triggers the running of the appeal period in the context of reconsideration rulings.      In Walshe v. Gelfand, Case

Civil Code Section 1717: Fees Incurred In Previously Dismissed Action Properly Allowed In Refiled Action Where First Action Work Necessarily Used in Second Action.

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division Three Also Faces Grant/P R Burke Appeal Untimeliness Issue.      Two interesting issues were raised in Presiding Justice Sills’ opinion on behalf of the Fourth District, Division Three in Kenney v. Tanforan Park Shopping Center, Case Nos. G038323 & G039372 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 15, 2008) (unpublished). The first concerns timeliness

Appealability: Another Reminder To Separately Appeal Subsequent Fee Award

Cases: Appealability

Appellate Jurisdiction to Hear Fee Award Challenge Is Likely Not Cognizable      In our category “Cases: Appealability,” we have reviewed numerous decisions from state appellate courts indicating that subsequent orders awarding attorney’s fees must be separately appealed where there is no mention of fees in a prior merits judgment. Averbuch v. Strekovsky, Case No. B201764

Scroll to Top