Second District, Division 1 Discusses Technical Appeal Issues, But Also Indicates Affirmance of Award on the Merits. When you are a plaintiff winning a fee award (which you believe was not large enough), be careful to avoid a waiver of appellate rights by accepting a check payment for the fee award. That is what
First District, Division 1 Grants Writ of Mandate Because Trial Court Failed to Exercise Any Discretion on Undertaking for Substantial Cost/Fees Order. This post is somewhat complimentary to our June 12, 2009 post on Tracy v. Tracy, where a reversal and remand was required because a trial court failed to actually exercise its discretion
Third District Finds No Jurisdiction to Review Under Unusual Procedural Backdrop. In our category “Appealability,” we have canvassed many prior decisions on when an appeal of a prior merits judgment can also subsume and preserve appellate review for a subsequent postjudgment fee award liquidating the amount of the award. For example, we have looked
First District, Division 4 Applies a Cardinal Appellate Principle. As we have stressed in past posts on appellate practice, litigants needs to make sure that they provide an adequate appellate record for review of fee determinations. If they do not do so, affirmance is a foregone conclusion. The next case illustrates this well.
Fifth District Overturns Based on a Pragmatic Assessment of Litigation Results. Who says that appellate courts are not pragmatic in their assessment of who prevailed for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees? That is the law after all, and the next case is an illustration of where a cause was reversed because neither side prevailed
Second District, Division Two Applies CCP section 904.1(a)(12) in Venue Transfer Dispute. A.Z. Mashiah, Ltd. v. Christopher Ranch, LLC, Case No. B204185 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 23, 2009) (unpublished) reminds us all that only a sanctions order greater than $5,000 is immediately appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1(a)(12), one of the
Third District Distinguishes Its Facts From Otay in Unpublished Decision.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
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
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
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
