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 v. Christopher Ranch, LLC, Case No. B204185 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 23, 2009) (unpublished) reminds us all that only a sanctions order greater than $5,000 is immediately appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1(a)(12), one of the
Third District Distinguishes Its Facts From Otay in Unpublished Decision.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 In a lengthy but informative unpublished opinion, the Fourth District, Division One affirmed and reversed some sanctions components assessed against a plaintiff who was defensed through demurrer and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
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
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,
Second District, Division 7 Finds No Basis to Reduce Fee Award to Anti-SLAPP Victor Any Further. If you are going to challenge the award of a mandatory fee to an anti-SLAPP victor, the message from the next case is to make sure that you have an appealable fee order and that you provide substantiated
