Cases: Arbitration

Arbitration: “Award” For Arbitration Correction Purposes Depends On Whether Every Aspect Of A Dispute Is Resolved, With Post-Arbitration Judicial Proceeding Fees Allowable

Cases: Arbitration

Breadth Of Fees Clause Sustained The Post-Arbitration Judicial Fees.             In Lonky v. Patel, Case No. B295314 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 2, 2020) (published), the Second District had to consider two issues:  what is an arbitration final “award” for purposes of jurisdictional correction purposes and are post-arbitration judicial proceeding fees to the prevailing party

Arbitration: $87,136.42 Final Arbitration Award—Most Of It Attorney’s Fees—Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Arbitration

Trope Waiver OK Between Sophisticated Parties (But Fees Were Not Awarded For Self-Representation Anyway), With Arbitrator Not Being Bound By Prevailing Party Statutory Test And Not Having To Allocate Between Contract/Tort Claims.             In Flint v. Koslyn, Case No. B289997 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 16, 2020) (unpublished), former attorney/tenant of a client/landlord entered into

Arbitration: Arbitration Award Of $125,795.50 In Attorney Fee and $36,423.02 In Costs Against Subcontractor Achieving A Damages Award Of Only $5,582.59 Out Of Requested $272,548.19 Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Arbitration

Under Moncharsh, Merits Rulings Are Generally Beyond Appellate Review.             We have often posted on arbitral finality and the limitations on judicial review over arbitration awards in the majority of cases based on Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (1992).  Such is the situation with the next case.             Volpe Co.

Arbitration, Sanctions: 4/3 DCA Affirms $50,000 Code Civ. Proc. Section 128.5 Sanctions Awarded Against Client And Attorney For Their Frivolous Litigation and Dilatory Tactics

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Sanctions

Broad Language In The Parties’ Retainer Agreement Authorized Arbitrator’s Review Of Ancillary Matters – Such As Litigation Conduct Rationally Related To The Underlying Dispute.             In ATG Electronics, Inc. v. The Mulcahy Law Firm, Case No. G056931 (4th Dist., Div. 3 January 16, 2020) (unpublished), Law Firm claiming Former Client owed almost $100,000 in outstanding

Arbitration, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Trial Court Properly Found That Respondent Did Not Prevail For Fee Recovery Even Though She Did Obtain A Ruling Denying A Petition To Confirm The Arbitration Award And Did Obtain A Vacatur Ruling

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

The Lower Court’s Discretionary Determination That No One Prevailed Was Affirmed On Appeal.             In Goraya v. Stephens, Case No. F078335 (5th Dist. Jan. 3, 2020) (unpublished), property seller and property buyer submitted to arbitration and settled, with the listing agent joined as a party in the arbitration at his own request, eventually obtaining an

Arbitration, Nonsignatories, Quantum Meruit, Retainer Agreements: Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award Of $1,273,765.91 In Fees Owed To Two Law Firms Plus Another $508,678.82 For Fees And Costs Incurred In The Arbitration Affirmed

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Quantum Meruit, Cases: Retainer Agreements

Arbitration Was Properly Ordered Because The Claims Between Client And The Two Law Firms Arose Out Of The Underlying Retainer And Arbitration Agreements Client Signed With The First Law Firm.             Client retained a law firm to represent her in an ongoing dissolution action – signing a Retainer Agreement and a binding Arbitration Agreement.  During

Arbitration: Based On Law Of The Case And Preclusion Doctrines, Prevailing Arbitration Law Firm Properly Denied Fees In Post-Arbitration Judicial Proceeding Relating To Arbitration Award

Cases: Arbitration

Prior Appellate Decision Basically Sealed The Result, With The Trope Prohibition Also Requiring Denial Of Fees Relating To Another Law Firm Attorney Whose Personal Interests Were Not Implicated.             On May 25, 2019, we earlier posted on a prior decision which was implicated more recently in eGumball, Inc. v. Call & Jensen, Case No. G056650

Arbitration, Employment: 4/3 DCA Affirms Lower Court’s Denial Of Motion To Compel Arbitration Because, Among Other Things, Arbitration Clause Gave Arbitrator Mandatory Authority To Award Fees To Employer Even Where Fee-Shifting Statutes Favored Employe

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment

Mandatory Language Of Fee Clause Demonstrated Substantive Unconscionability, Which Was Not Supplanted By More General Reference To JAMS Employment Rules Which Were More Discretionary In Nature.             We commend employment attorneys to read Randall v. Veros Credit, LLC, Case No. G056463 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 17, 2019) (unpublished), where a trial judge denied an

Arbitration, Fee Clause Interpretation, Indemnity: Narrow Fee Clause, Allowing Recovery In Arbitration Only, Did Not Confer Fee Recovery For Fees Relating To Litigation

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity

Indemnity Clause Gave No Basis For Fee Recovery, Because It Was Unilateral In Favor Of Unsuccessful Party, Not Allowing For Fee Entitlement–$628,587.50 In Fees Went Away!             In Club Acacia Community Assn. v. Professional Community Management of California, Inc., Case No. G056313 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 11, 2019) (unpublished), a long-time dispute between an

Appeal Sanctions, Arbitration: Broad Operating Agreement Fees Clause Justified $238,000 Fees/Costs Award To Arbitration Prevailing Party, Plus Fees For Winning On Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Arbitration

Appealing Party Just Avoided Sanctions For Frivolous Appeal, But Fees On Appeal Found To Be The Appropriate Remedy.             Walters v. Boustead Securities, LLC, Case No. G056250 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 11, 2019) (unpublished) is an interesting Fourth District, Division 3 opinion affirming a $238,000 fees/costs arbitration award in favor of a prevailing party

Scroll to Top