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
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
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 G038323 & G039372 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 15, 2008) (unpublished).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
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
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Needs-Based Fee Award Is Reversed and Remanded In Marriage of Rothe, Case No. B202733 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 20, 2008) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a lump sum fee award of $92,552.86 in
Third District, in Unpublished Decision, May Have Parted Company From Fourth District, Division Two’s View on the Issue.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
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'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
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
