Cases: Appealability

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 G038323 & G039372 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 15, 2008) (unpublished).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

Family Law: Needs-Based Fee Award Reversed On Due Process Grounds And Litigiousness-Based Fee Award Affirmed Under Abuse of Discretion Standard

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Family Law

Second and Sixth District Cases Show That Appellate Record Can Be The Key to Success on Appeal. Needs-Based Fee Award Is Reversed and Remanded      In Marriage of Rothe, Case No. B202733 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 20, 2008) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a lump sum fee award of $92,552.86 in

Appellant’s Failure To Appeal Initial Judgment Awarding Fees, Rather Than Second Judgment Fixing Fees, Led to Dismissal Of Appeal

Cases: Appealability

Third District, in Unpublished Decision, May Have Parted Company From Fourth District, Division Two’s View on the Issue.      In our June 7, 2008 post, we reviewed P R Burke Corp. v. Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Auth., 98 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1050, 1055 (2002), where the Fourth District, Division Two held that an appellant preserved review

Cross-Complainant Hit With Anti-SLAPP Fees Failed To Preserve Challenge By Separately Appealing Fee Grant Order

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

  Fourth District, Division One Refuses to Consider the Fee Grant Issue.               Cross-complainant failed to beat an anti-SLAPP motion and was ordered to pay successful cross-defendants $3,998 in attorney's fees and $80.00 in other costs.  The final judgment granting the anti-SLAPP motion was silent as to both entitlement to or amount of fees

Plaintiff Winning Anti-SLAPP Motion Is Not Entitled to Appeal A Fee Denial Until Final Judgment Is Reached

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

  Plaintiff's Appeal of Anti-SLAPP Fee Denial Was Premature.               A plaintiff successfully opposing an anti-SLAPP motion may be entitled to attorney's fees if the motion is determined to have been frivolous or brought solely for the purpose of furthering unnecessary delay.  Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c).  In the case discussed below, defendant lost

Plaintiff Who Lost Attorney’s Fees Motion Untimely Appealed, Which Meant Appellate Court Was Without Jurisdiction To Review The Matter

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Deadlines

Sixth District Refuses to Review Adverse Fee Order Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Timely Appeal under CRC 8.104             Plaintiff  lost a motion to set aside a judicially supervised stipulated judgment in a roadway easement action.  One of the defendants was granted attorney’s fees for defending the motion under a contractual fees

Reversals Of Two Judgments Result In Either Vacating Or Remand Of Fee Orders

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First and Fourth Districts Overturn Fee Awards After Reversal of Underlying Judgments.             Reversals of underlying judgments can also mean that attorney’s fees awards are vacated or remanded if properly appealed, as the next two cases illustrate.             The First District, Division Four, in Arntz Builders v. City of

Scroll to Top