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 […]
Court of Appeal Affirms Denial of Attorney’s Fees to Prevailing Parties Against the City of Chowchilla. In our July 12, 2008 post, we discussed when contract indemnification clauses will and will not be interpreted as allowing a recovery of attorney’s fees to litigants in litigation not involving true third-party indemnity issues.
Proprietor’s Ratification Triggered Fee Liability to Conservator When House Sold For Less Than Its Fair Market Value. Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5 has a mandatory fee-shifting provision that authorizes an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs (including conservator’s fees devoted to litigation) when a defendant is proven liable for
Second District, Division Eight Dismisses Appeal of Fee Motion Denial for Lack of Jurisdiction, Reminding Us That A Fee Determination Is Only Appealable After Entry of An Appealable Order or Judgment. Increasingly, appellate courts have become less lenient for litigants’/practitioners’ failures to appeal from appealable orders or judgments. For example, no
Melbostad Offers Crucial Tips on Correctly Appealing anti-SLAPP Order Granting Fees to a Prevailing Defendant. On August 4, 2008, the First District, Division Four—on its own motion—has decided to publish Melbostad v. Fisher, Case No. A119514 (1st Dist., Div. 4 July 23, 2008). Actually, we believe that this was a decision
First District Unpublished Decision So Counsels, Dismissing Appeal Where Anti-SLAPP Plaintiff Failed to Timely Appeal from Fee Recovery Order. Melbostad v. Fisher, Case No. A119514 (1st Dis., Div. 4 July 23, 2008) (unpublished) is must reading for litigants and practitioners with respect to what orders should be appealed from in order
Sixth District Overturns Fee Award Because A Subpoena Request Is Not Within the Ambit of the Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike Procedure. Plaintiff, a New York resident, obtained an Ohio state court order with subpoena power to obtain information from Google about anonymous web blogs that were allegedly defaming plaintiff. After Google
Fourth District, Division Three Finds Appealability and Affirms Fees In a Rescissionary Case. Our local Santa Ana-based appellate court, the Fourth District, Division Three, faced an appeal of a fee award based upon a rescissionary theory. It affirmed the award in Deen v. Fisler, Case No. G038907 (4th Dist., Div. 3
Sixth District Affirms Fee Award Assessed Against Litigant Who Brought Section 128.7 Motion That Was Denied. In Star Building Systems v. G.W. Davis, Inc., Case No. H032093 (6th Dist. June 27, 2008) (unpublished), plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, after a demurrer was sustained with leave, with an unjust enrichment claim
Second District, Division Three Rules on Scope and Reasonableness of Certain Fees Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5. Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5, one segment of California’s Elder Abuse Act, is a mandatory fee-shifting provision. In relevant part, section 15657.5 provides: “(a) Where it is proven by a preponderance
