Case Concerns How An Arbitration Party Preserves Ability To Obtain Fees And Costs Under CCP § 998, Whether From Arbitrator And/Or Trial Judge On June 14, 2017, we posted on Heimlich v. Shivji, 12 Cal.App.5th 152 (2017). We can now report that the California Supreme Court granted review of this case, assigning it Case […]
Reversal By Appellate Court AND Opposition’s Own Positions Sealed The Propriety Of Post-Arbitration Fee Request Denial. Harshad & Nasir Corp. v. Global Sign Systems, Case Nos. B269427 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 15, 2017) (published) is an interesting case involving arbitral review, scope of issues under an arbitration agreement, statute of
Trial Judge Correctly Decided Fee Entitlement Issue Which Was Left To The Court For Resolution By The Arbitrator. In Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC v. Kent A. McNaughton and Associates, Case Nos. G052704/G052984 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2017) (unpublished), landlord brought an unlawful detainer action against tenant (one of landlord’s owners)
Basic Lesson Is That Request Can Be Made After Merits Determination, With No Pre-Merits “Notice Alert” To Arbitrator Being Necessary. Heimlich v. Shivji, Case No. H042641 (6th Dist. May 31, 2017) (published) is a significant appellate decision specifying how a litigant in an arbitration proceeding preserves the ability to obtain recovery
DisputeSuite Recent California Supreme Court Decision Supported The Result. In Ahern v. Asset Management Consultants, Inc., Case No. B271851 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 22, 2017) (unpublished), parties successfully challenging an adverse result on the basis it was not arbitrable later sought $465,000 in attorney’s fees even though the merits dispute was
Fee Request Can Be Renewed If Someone Prevails, With Appellate Court Distinguishing Or Criticizing Other Decisions Suggesting Otherwise. In Chan v. Delta Dental of California, Case No. A139739 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 17, 2017) (unpublished), Plaintiff successfully thwarted a defense motion to compel arbitration and then moved to recover her fees for success,
Sanctions Order Did Not Have Adequate Specificity. Idewu v. Clark, Case No. B266573 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 24, 2017) (unpublished) is a situation where a trial judge likely was somewhat irked by the conduct of a defendant successfully moving to compel arbitration. After the matter was moved to arbitration, the arbitration proceeded
One More “Hot Button Issue” For The Courts . . . Co-contributor Marc Alexander, who publishes the blog California Mediation and Arbitration, explains in the latest volume of California Litigation, that arbitration has become one more "hot button issue" for the U.S. Supreme Court Justices to disagree about. The article is republished here with
Arbitration Submission Agreement Did Not Envision Fees And Costs At All. An arbitrator in Centinela-Freeman Emergency Med. Associates v. Hispanic Physicians IPA Med. Corp., Case No. B258015 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 8, 2016) (unpublished) awarded request for admission costs-of-proof sanctions under CCP § 2033.420. No trifling amount was awarded, because the RFA
Fees Award By Arbitrator Affirmed On Appeal. In Callahan, Thompson, Sherman & Caudill, LLP v. PathwayData, Inc., Case No. G051511 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 10, 2016) (unpublished), arbitrator awarded fees under a broad fees clause, after attorneys prevailed, under a Legal Services Agreement stating that recovery of fees and costs could be
