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 In Flint v. Koslyn, Case No. B289997 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 16, 2020) (unpublished), former attorney/tenant of a client/landlord entered into […]
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.
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 In ATG Electronics, Inc. v. The Mulcahy Law Firm, Case No. G056931 (4th Dist., Div. 3 January 16, 2020) (unpublished), Law Firm claiming Former Client owed almost $100,000 in outstanding
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 Jan. 3, 2020) (unpublished), property seller and property buyer submitted to arbitration and settled, with the listing agent joined as a party in the arbitration at his own request,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 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
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
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commend employment attorneys to read Randall v. Veros Credit, LLC, Case No. G056463 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 17, 2019) (unpublished), where a trial judge denied an
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
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
Arbitrator’s Consideration of 998 Offer After Close Of Evidence Did Not Alter The Result. In Hartzler v. 110 Management, Inc., Case No. B290134 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 12, 2019) (unpublished), property manager of Amy Lee Hartzler, who co-founded the rock band Evanescence, sued for alleged unpaid commissions under a management agreement with a
