Cases: Arbitration

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commend employment attorneys to read Randall v. Veros Credit, LLC, Case No. G056463 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 17, 2019) (unpublished), where a trial judge denied an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

Arbitration, Section 998: $1,036,773.68 Fees/Costs Award To Losing Arbitration Claimant Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 998

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

Appeal Sanctions, Arbitration: $55,764.40 Fee Award By An Arbitrator In Defective Car Case Could Not Be Reviewed On The Merits

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Arbitration

Appeal Sanctions Was Not Imposed For Frivolous Appeal Because Respondent’s Request Was Patently Excessive.             Justice Goethals, in Housen v. Ultimate Autoline, Case No. G055878 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 10, 2019) (unpublished), reminds litigants and practitioners that the merits of arbitrator’s decisions are by and large not reviewable and that the arbitrator has limited

Arbitration, Section 998: California Supreme Court Announces Bright-Line Rule For Presentation of Rejected CCP § 998 Offers To Arbitrators—Within 15 Days After Issuance Of Final Award

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 998

However, Arbitrator Still Has Wide-Ranging Discretion To Allow Costs-Shifting Or Not.             The California Supreme Court, in Heimlich v. Shivji, Case No. S243029 (Cal. Supreme Court May 30, 2019), in a 7-0 opinion authored by Justice Corrigan, established a bright-line rule for presentation of a rejected CCP § 998 offer to an arbitrator for fee/cost-shifting

Arbitration: Arbitration Claimants Losing Real Estate Dispute With Different Respondents Could Not Obtain Review Of Arbitrator’s Rulings By Which $1.3 Million In Adverse Fee Awards Were Granted

Cases: Arbitration

Merits Of Fee Rulings Were Beyond Review.             As we have posted on many occasions, contractual interpretation or merits rulings are generally beyond trial court or appellate review in a vast majority of situations under Moncharsh v. Heily & Blaise, 3 Cal.4th 1, 11-12, 33 (1992).  The arbitrator, in a real estate dispute, found against

Arbitration, Ethics: Ethics Lapse Not Violating Any Rules Of Professional Conduct Did Not Disqualify Law Firm From Collecting Unpaid Receivable

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Ethics

However, Arbitrator’s Decision Not To Award Almost $1 Million In Arbitration Fees Based On Trope Prohibition Was Nonreviewable “Arbitrator Judgment Call.”             In eGumball, Inc. v. Call & Jensen, et al., Case Nos. G055852 and G055989 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 17, 2019) (unpublished), a well-known Orange County law firm initiated arbitration to collect unpaid

Scroll to Top